From manal at tra.gov.eg Mon Jun 1 07:00:08 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 07:00:08 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN In-Reply-To: <5566FAD6.1040304@oracle.com> References: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> <5E84D76F74394104A084886B2AD96143@WUKPC> <5566FAD6.1040304@oracle.com> Message-ID: Many thanks Alissa .. Looks good to me as well, along with the proposed edits .. If we're adopting those edits, I suggest reflecting them consistently throughout the email, of course depending on how formal this email is supposed to be and whether you're sending on behalf of the ICG or ICG chairs .. In other words, if we're replacing 'we' with 'the ICG' and 'Larry' with ' Mr. Strickling, it may be appropriate to do so in some other occurrences as well (suggested edits below in blue) .. I also believe that the sentence reading 'The ICG has inquired with the operational communities' gives the feeling that we have already received their responses .. So I think 'is inquiring', or something along the continuous tense, may be more accurate .. I'll leave to yourself and other native speakers to decide and happy to proceed with the current draft as is if agreed to be more appropriate .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of joseph alhadeff Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 1:24 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN A couple of minor points related to this version: I think the use of "Larry" in the last paragraph is too informal use the full name or Mr. Strikling. Also in the last sentence, why should we limit soliciting their thoughts only till June? - why not in the course of the proposal development process?... Other than that fine. Joe On 5/28/2015 2:21 AM, WUKnoben wrote: Thanks Alissa, see my suggestion in red. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:58 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN Here is a proposed email to ICANN/Steve Crocker based on our discussion during call #17. Please provide your feedback. --- Dear Steve, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Mr. Strickling [1] that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community's views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract." We understand that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. We The ICG hasve inquired is currently inquiring with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete their proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. We The ICG expects ICANN to provide input within those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that you the ICANN board thinks we should know in formulating our the ICG response to Larry Mr. Strickling, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html ________________________________ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Mon Jun 1 09:56:11 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 09:56:11 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal In-Reply-To: <90020C74-9D02-4DFA-BCE6-61290DF23CBF@cooperw.in> References: <90020C74-9D02-4DFA-BCE6-61290DF23CBF@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7c5d54fb13e14a9ba22daa46c259369c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Many thanks for the initiative to advance our work .. Agree with the approach .. Yet I'm a bit confused as to our final deliverable: - Are we going to simply concatenate the 3 proposals in one document? Why then call each part " Combined Proposal: Part ..." , or - Gathering the parts under the same title from the different proposals and grouping them into this combined version (which is my preference for and understanding of the consolidated version) .. I'm not suggesting any re-editing, I'm only suggesting grouping relevant parts under the same title to provide a full picture of what's being proposed under each title of the consolidated proposal .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:52 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal In preparation for eventually having a single complete proposal to put out for public comment, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the IETF and RIR proposals into a single Word document (attached and on dropbox at ). We'd like to get this off to the translators so they can start working on translating it, but we wanted to share it with the ICG first to make sure folks are okay with the formatting. The content is unchanged from the submission we received from the two communities. As we work toward a complete proposal we will likely need to add a preface, but that has not been written yet. Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Jun 1 15:08:07 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 08:08:07 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN In-Reply-To: <5566FAD6.1040304@oracle.com> References: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> <5E84D76F74394104A084886B2AD96143@WUKPC> <5566FAD6.1040304@oracle.com> Message-ID: Hi Joe, On May 28, 2015, at 4:24 AM, joseph alhadeff wrote: > A couple of minor points related to this version: > > I think the use of "Larry" in the last paragraph is too informal use the full name or Mr. Strikling. Also in the last sentence, why should we limit soliciting their thoughts only till June? - why not in the course of the proposal development process?… We need to get a response back to Larry Strickling by the end of June. Alissa > > Other than that fine. > > Joe > > On 5/28/2015 2:21 AM, WUKnoben wrote: >> Thanks Alissa, >> >> see my suggestion in red. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> >> From: Alissa Cooper >> Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 12:58 AM >> To: internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN >> >> Here is a proposed email to ICANN/Steve Crocker based on our discussion during call #17. Please provide your feedback. >> >> --- >> >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling [1] that included the following text: >> >> "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >> >> We understand that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. >> >> We The ICG hasve inquired with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. We expect ICANN to provide input within those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that you the ICANN board thinks we should know in formulating our response to Larry, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> >> [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf >> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html >> [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html >> [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Jun 1 15:12:25 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 08:12:25 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN In-Reply-To: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> References: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <8D560070-7BCF-4F7F-9DDC-5BD70C3E412F@cooperw.in> Thanks all for the edits. I have incorporated them with minor tweaks below. I’ll send this after 23:59 UTC today in case anyone else has edits to suggest before then. Alissa --- Dear Steve, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling [1] that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG understands that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. The ICG is inquiring with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete their proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. The ICG expects ICANN to provide input directly to those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that the ICANN Board thinks we should know in formulating our response to Sec. Strickling, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC for consideration by the ICG. Should you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Jun 1 15:31:23 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 08:31:23 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Implementation email for ICANN In-Reply-To: <8D560070-7BCF-4F7F-9DDC-5BD70C3E412F@cooperw.in> References: <60361F27-F0A7-4CBE-AE87-BD8CA16F2979@cooperw.in> <8D560070-7BCF-4F7F-9DDC-5BD70C3E412F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <7BB7CB7C-4176-404B-9AA9-14F8D22DC976@oracle.com> Seems fine. If we delay sending any further, we should push back June 9th by a few days. Sent from my iPad > On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:12 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > Thanks all for the edits. I have incorporated them with minor tweaks below. I’ll send this after 23:59 UTC today in case anyone else has edits to suggest before then. > > Alissa > > --- > > Dear Steve, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling [1] that included the following text: > > "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG understands that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. > > The ICG is inquiring with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete their proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. The ICG expects ICANN to provide input directly to those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that the ICANN Board thinks we should know in formulating our response to Sec. Strickling, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC for consideration by the ICG. Should you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed > > [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf > [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html > [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html > [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Jun 2 00:08:10 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 17:08:10 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Time frame inquiry Message-ID: <849AABA5-834A-419C-8E8E-3693CCF77CC2@cooperw.in> Dear Steve, The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Sec. Strickling [1] that included the following text: "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” The ICG understands that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. The ICG is inquiring with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete their proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. The ICG expects ICANN to provide input directly to those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that the ICANN Board thinks we should know in formulating our response to Sec. Strickling, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC for consideration by the ICG. Should you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. Thanks, Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Jun 2 01:13:25 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 18:13:25 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry References: <7D3BCC5A-13E8-4428-9C15-4132F736E0DC@shinkuro.com> Message-ID: <9F5B6726-67C9-4B50-9FD9-7354FBDA649A@cooperw.in> Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Crocker > Subject: Re: Time frame inquiry > Date: June 1, 2015 at 5:39:38 PM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: "Stephen D. Crocker" , internal-cg at ianacg.org, Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir > > Alissa, > > Thanks very much for your message. We will coordinate internally and respond to you and the operational communities. > > Steve > > > > On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Dear Steve, >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Sec. Strickling [1] that included the following text: >> >> "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >> >> The ICG understands that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. >> >> The ICG is inquiring with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete their proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. The ICG expects ICANN to provide input directly to those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that the ICANN Board thinks we should know in formulating our response to Sec. Strickling, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC for consideration by the ICG. Should you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> >> [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf >> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html >> [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html >> [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Tue Jun 2 08:28:07 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 10:28:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal In-Reply-To: <7c5d54fb13e14a9ba22daa46c259369c@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <28559512.202.1433233686282.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> I have the same concerns/questions as Manal, and support her suggestion for a consolidated version. Conversely, presenting our ICG Plan as simply a stitching-up of 3 separate fabrics would, IMO, - invalidate the original approach, which was to deliver a cogent plan upon which the USG could react and, hopefully, would allow it to implement the transition of oversight, - be seen by the global Internet community as a minimalistic, over-cautious exercise, with little value added by ICG, - in hindsight, diminish the relevance of ICG as a key element in the transition process. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Alissa Cooper" , internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Lundi 1 Juin 2015 11:56:11 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal Many thanks for the initiative to advance our work .. Agree with the approach .. Yet I'm a bit confused as to our final deliverable: - Are we going to simply concatenate the 3 proposals in one document? Why then call each part " Combined Proposal: Part …" , or - Gathering the parts under the same title from the different proposals and grouping them into this combined version (which is my preference for and understanding of the consolidated version) .. I'm not suggesting any re-editing, I'm only suggesting grouping relevant parts under the same title to provide a full picture of what's being proposed under each title of the consolidated proposal .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:52 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined IETF/RIRs proposal In preparation for eventually having a single complete proposal to put out for public comment, the chairs asked the secretariat to combine the IETF and RIR proposals into a single Word document (attached and on dropbox at < https://www.dropbox.com/home/CoordinationGroup/Evaluation/Incoming%20documents?preview=combined-proposal-v0.doc >). We’d like to get this off to the translators so they can start working on translating it, but we wanted to share it with the ICG first to make sure folks are okay with the formatting. The content is unchanged from the submission we received from the two communities. As we work toward a complete proposal we will likely need to add a preface, but that has not been written yet. Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Tue Jun 2 14:29:14 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 14:29:14 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together Message-ID: > Conversely, presenting our ICG Plan as simply a stitching-up of 3 > separate fabrics would, IMO, > - invalidate the original approach, which was to deliver a cogent plan > upon which the USG could react and, hopefully, would allow it to > implement the transition of oversight, > - be seen by the global Internet community as a minimalistic, over- > cautious exercise, with little value added by ICG, > - in hindsight, diminish the relevance of ICG as a key element in the > transition process. > JJS: Fundamentally, we are an intermediary between the involved global Internet community, the separate operational communities, NTIA and ICANN. As an intermediary, we have a review, approval and clearinghouse function but not a proposal development function. We review the documents for consistency with the requirements and for compatibility before we "stitch them together." If there are compatibility problems or questions about conformity to the requirements we take the lead in resolving them. In our final proposal, we _should_ draft an overview or preamble which makes a coherent presentation of the overall outcome. This will be important because it will "frame" the final proposal as a complete package. Last but not least, we will be responsible for interpreting the final stage of public comments, and for determining whether modifications are required. We will have plenty to do. From jjs at dyalog.net Tue Jun 2 15:06:41 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:06:41 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <18487524.24.1433257600592.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hi Milton, while agreeing with the points you make, - our Preamble, Overview or Conclusion, while reflecting the input received, must add value to the process; - this does not mean that ICG would be taking over the task of proposing content; - in my previous email, I was not suggesting that we would not have much to do: but in the long run, the value of the outcome will be a more important consideration than the quantity of work we put in. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" À: "Jean-Jacques' 'Subrenat" , "Manal Ismail" Cc: "internal-cg at ianacg.org" Envoyé: Mardi 2 Juin 2015 16:29:14 Objet: Stitching things together > Conversely, presenting our ICG Plan as simply a stitching-up of 3 > separate fabrics would, IMO, > - invalidate the original approach, which was to deliver a cogent plan > upon which the USG could react and, hopefully, would allow it to > implement the transition of oversight, > - be seen by the global Internet community as a minimalistic, over- > cautious exercise, with little value added by ICG, > - in hindsight, diminish the relevance of ICG as a key element in the > transition process. > JJS: Fundamentally, we are an intermediary between the involved global Internet community, the separate operational communities, NTIA and ICANN. As an intermediary, we have a review, approval and clearinghouse function but not a proposal development function. We review the documents for consistency with the requirements and for compatibility before we "stitch them together." If there are compatibility problems or questions about conformity to the requirements we take the lead in resolving them. In our final proposal, we _should_ draft an overview or preamble which makes a coherent presentation of the overall outcome. This will be important because it will "frame" the final proposal as a complete package. Last but not least, we will be responsible for interpreting the final stage of public comments, and for determining whether modifications are required. We will have plenty to do. From Lynn at Internet-Matters.com Tue Jun 2 16:31:55 2015 From: Lynn at Internet-Matters.com (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:31:55 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <005501d09abc$10decb30$329c6190$@icgsec.asia> References: <00c501d09691$2b629650$8227c2f0$@icgsec.asia> <51f5925fa0de42b18f496108b6b7094b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <009901d097cd$e5e340f0$b1a9c2d0$@icgsec.asia> <005501d09abc$10decb30$329c6190$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <5AE718FB-1584-46DD-BD2B-3E23AF932798@Internet-Matters.com> Thank you Jennifer, I am fine with these minutes. Lynn On May 30, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > Attached please find v5 of the minutes of the 19 May call. This version > incorporates Paul's edits and is a clean copy for ICG approval. > > This can also be found on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1LPxXKb > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:37 AM > To: Jennifer Chung > Cc: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > Jennifer, > > I made a few small changes to the v4 minutes, which you can see in the > markup. > > Paul. > > > On 27 May 2015, at 2:06, Jennifer Chung wrote: > >> FYI, Milton's requested edits to the 19 May call minutes below: >> >> >> >> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 11:14 AM >> To: Jennifer Chung >> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> Very detailed, clear minutes. Thanks. >> >> >> >> A few modifications: >> >> >> >> You quote me from the chat as saying "Mueller stated that he '[does >> not] think that ICANN is the right entity to ask about >> implementation'. >> That is a >> correct quote but in context, what I meant by "ask about >> implementation" was actually "ask about _what is meant by_ >> implementation." So please put that in. Obviously we need to ask ICANN >> about their timeframe for implementation. >> >> >> >> >> I am not sure what this statement (it's on the bottom of page 4) >> means: >> "Cooper asked .whether it is the plan to transition away from the PTI >> (Post Transition IANA)?" What does it mean to "transition away from >> the PTI?" Did Alissa really say that? >> >> >> >> Relatedly, Knoben is quoted as saying "the actual plan needs an >> estimated 18 months of further development" - is that right? >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Jennifer Chung >> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM >> To: 'ICG' >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May >> teleconference >> (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: >> http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM >> To: 'ICG' >> Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached >> and >> also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Tue Jun 2 16:48:53 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:48:53 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference In-Reply-To: <005501d09abc$10decb30$329c6190$@icgsec.asia> References: <00c501d09691$2b629650$8227c2f0$@icgsec.asia> <51f5925fa0de42b18f496108b6b7094b@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <009901d097cd$e5e340f0$b1a9c2d0$@icgsec.asia> <005501d09abc$10decb30$329c6190$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Thank you Jennifer, I am fine with these minutes. Lynn On May 30, 2015, at 5:36 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > Attached please find v5 of the minutes of the 19 May call. This version > incorporates Paul's edits and is a clean copy for ICG approval. > > This can also be found on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1LPxXKb > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:37 AM > To: Jennifer Chung > Cc: Alissa Cooper; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference > > Jennifer, > > I made a few small changes to the v4 minutes, which you can see in the > markup. > > Paul. > > > On 27 May 2015, at 2:06, Jennifer Chung wrote: > >> FYI, Milton's requested edits to the 19 May call minutes below: >> >> >> >> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] >> Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 11:14 AM >> To: Jennifer Chung >> Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> Very detailed, clear minutes. Thanks. >> >> >> >> A few modifications: >> >> >> >> You quote me from the chat as saying "Mueller stated that he '[does >> not] think that ICANN is the right entity to ask about >> implementation'. >> That is a >> correct quote but in context, what I meant by "ask about >> implementation" was actually "ask about _what is meant by_ >> implementation." So please put that in. Obviously we need to ask ICANN >> about their timeframe for implementation. >> >> >> >> >> I am not sure what this statement (it's on the bottom of page 4) >> means: >> "Cooper asked .whether it is the plan to transition away from the PTI >> (Post Transition IANA)?" What does it mean to "transition away from >> the PTI?" Did Alissa really say that? >> >> >> >> Relatedly, Knoben is quoted as saying "the actual plan needs an >> estimated 18 months of further development" - is that right? >> >> >> >> --MM >> >> >> >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Jennifer Chung >> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 10:19 PM >> To: 'ICG' >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Please find attached v2 of the draft minutes of the 19 May >> teleconference >> (ICG Call #16). This is also available on Dropbox here: >> http://bit.ly/1BkOOP4. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] >> Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2015 2:18 AM >> To: 'ICG' >> Subject: Minutes of the 19 May 2015 teleconference >> >> >> >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> The minutes of the 19 May teleconference (ICG Call #16) are attached >> and >> also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FJFpaY >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Lynn at LStAmour.org Tue Jun 2 16:59:34 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:59:34 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 27 May 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 17) In-Reply-To: <005901d09abc$70bdcb00$52396100$@icgsec.asia> References: <005901d09abc$70bdcb00$52396100$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Hi Jennifer, on the final page of the minutes, it states: · Lee wondered if the ICG can have some communication (informal or otherwise) with NTIA regarding their suggestions on the proposal, before the ICG finalizes the submission. o Cooper referred to the orange bar across the top of the timeline representing an on-going NTIA review of the proposal. She stated that this has been happening to some extent as NTIA feedback was given at the ICANN Singapore meeting. § Adobe Connect chat: Clark agreed that the NTIA has interacted, but pointed out that the NTIA does not review incomplete proposals. § Adobe Connect chat: St. Amour responded that ‘the NTIA follows all this closely’ and if [the NTIA] had any serious reservations, it would be known. Lee stated that ‘the NTIA always shows up when they think it is necessary to [comment] on the transition’. With respect to the final Adobe Connect chat comment above, my actual comment was: "NTIA follows all this closely, and if they have serious reservations, I suspect they would become known :‐). could you substitute this for the edited version above? Mank thanks, Lynn On May 30, 2015, at 5:38 AM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > The minutes of the 27 May teleconference (ICG Call #17) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1Jed3Vx. > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Jun 2 19:20:20 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 15:20:20 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 27 May 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 17) Message-ID: <012a01d09d69$2b8d6cc0$82a84640$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find v2 of the 27 May minutes attached. This is also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1K7JgOT This version incorporates Manal (page 4 and 5) and Lynn's (page 5) edits. I have included further edits, details below: - Page 4: An additional point made by Jari in chat (re parallelism), and Narelle's support thereof. - Page 5: An additional quote by Narelle in chat (re testing bar), and also added a link to the chat transcript for the rest of the discussion. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will incorporate any further edits on Friday, 5 June. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 5:39 AM To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: Minutes of the 27 May 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 17) Dear All, The minutes of the 27 May teleconference (ICG Call #17) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1Jed3Vx. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-27-may-2015-draft-v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 49646 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Wed Jun 3 04:58:15 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 07:58:15 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0AF460D0-1E23-40A1-9A12-BD5EA413D040@piuha.net> > Fundamentally, we are an intermediary between the involved global Internet community, the separate operational communities, NTIA and ICANN. As an intermediary, we have a review, approval and clearinghouse function but not a proposal development function. > > We review the documents for consistency with the requirements and for compatibility before we "stitch them together." If there are compatibility problems or questions about conformity to the requirements we take the lead in resolving them. > > In our final proposal, we _should_ draft an overview or preamble which makes a coherent presentation of the overall outcome. This will be important because it will "frame" the final proposal as a complete package. > > Last but not least, we will be responsible for interpreting the final stage of public comments, and for determining whether modifications are required. > > We will have plenty to do. What Milton said. And we need to do what we need to do, appearing to “add value” is not a goal by itself. In fact, organisations that unnecessarily try to add value scare me :-) Our value is in coordination and ensuring that others get going and that things fit together. I think we’re doing pretty well there. Also, for what it is worth, I much prefer an output document that has a substantive preamble but the three component proposals are kept in separate sections and not mixed. We will btw need effort to develop that preamble… The rationale for the above is that the proposals are in different spaces and indeed have different internals, even if they structurally are different and they fit together. I think the end result is much more readable if the three components are kept on their own rather than mixed. But yes, a preface/preamble is needed. Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Jun 3 07:07:17 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 09:07:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: <0AF460D0-1E23-40A1-9A12-BD5EA413D040@piuha.net> Message-ID: <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Jari, you're so right, "appearing to "add value" is not a goal in itself". The aim is not to be "appearing" anything, but to effectively add value. While scrupulously respecting our remit, hopefully the value of our work will be more than just the sum of its parts. Otherwise, why bother? I'm looking forward to being part of our team work for that, whether in a Preamble, Preface or Conclusions. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jari Arkko" À: "Milton L Mueller" , "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 3 Juin 2015 06:58:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together > Fundamentally, we are an intermediary between the involved global Internet community, the separate operational communities, NTIA and ICANN. As an intermediary, we have a review, approval and clearinghouse function but not a proposal development function. > > We review the documents for consistency with the requirements and for compatibility before we "stitch them together." If there are compatibility problems or questions about conformity to the requirements we take the lead in resolving them. > > In our final proposal, we _should_ draft an overview or preamble which makes a coherent presentation of the overall outcome. This will be important because it will "frame" the final proposal as a complete package. > > Last but not least, we will be responsible for interpreting the final stage of public comments, and for determining whether modifications are required. > > We will have plenty to do. What Milton said. And we need to do what we need to do, appearing to “add value” is not a goal by itself. In fact, organisations that unnecessarily try to add value scare me :-) Our value is in coordination and ensuring that others get going and that things fit together. I think we’re doing pretty well there. Also, for what it is worth, I much prefer an output document that has a substantive preamble but the three component proposals are kept in separate sections and not mixed. We will btw need effort to develop that preamble… The rationale for the above is that the proposals are in different spaces and indeed have different internals, even if they structurally are different and they fit together. I think the end result is much more readable if the three components are kept on their own rather than mixed. But yes, a preface/preamble is needed. Jari From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Jun 3 20:24:19 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:24:19 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] September F2F Message-ID: All, Please hold September 18-19 in your calendars for a possible ICG F2F meeting. We are still working on logistics and location but wanted to have people reserve that time if possible while we await further information. Thanks, Alissa From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 3 20:31:36 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 22:31:36 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Message-ID: Dear all, The ICANN53 meeting schedule is posted at: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full Below, here is an overview the sessions that relate directly to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Thursday, June 18th: a.. ICG Working Session 1 (All Day) Friday, June 19th: a.. ICG Working Session 2 (All Day) b.. CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 (All Day) Sunday, June 21st: a.. CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Board (15:00-16:00) b.. IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session (18:30-20:00) Monday, June 22nd: a.. CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Townhall Meeting (10:30-13:00) b.. CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session (16:45-18:00) Wednesday, June 24th: a.. CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 (15:30-17:00) Thursday, June 25th: a.. CWG-Stewardship Working Session 1 (08:30-10:00) b.. CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 (10:30-12:00) c.. ICG Working Session 3 (09:00-13:00) In addition, many other sessions deal with IANA stewardship transition and accountability matters. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu Jun 4 07:28:42 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 17:28:42 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBA91AFC@ACCAN01.accan.local> Since when did the Thursday meeting for the ICG reappear? I am booked to return home on the Tuesday night, BECAUSE we cancelled that meeting... Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2015 6:32 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Dear all, The ICANN53 meeting schedule is posted at: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full Below, here is an overview the sessions that relate directly to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Thursday, June 18th: * ICG Working Session 1 (All Day) Friday, June 19th: * ICG Working Session 2 (All Day) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 (All Day) Sunday, June 21st: * CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Board (15:00-16:00) * IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session (18:30-20:00) Monday, June 22nd: * CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Townhall Meeting (10:30-13:00) * CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session (16:45-18:00) Wednesday, June 24th: * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 (15:30-17:00) Thursday, June 25th: * CWG-Stewardship Working Session 1 (08:30-10:00) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 (10:30-12:00) * ICG Working Session 3 (09:00-13:00) In addition, many other sessions deal with IANA stewardship transition and accountability matters. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From narelle.clark at accan.org.au Thu Jun 4 07:32:26 2015 From: narelle.clark at accan.org.au (Narelle Clark) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 17:32:26 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <0AF460D0-1E23-40A1-9A12-BD5EA413D040@piuha.net> <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBA91AFD@ACCAN01.accan.local> And in violent agreement, can I suggest that perhaps our value could be in validating some of the process claims made? Ie documenting what was done, and the evidence the supporting systems exist. Narelle -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 5:07 PM To: Jari Arkko Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together Dear Jari, you're so right, "appearing to "add value" is not a goal in itself". The aim is not to be "appearing" anything, but to effectively add value. While scrupulously respecting our remit, hopefully the value of our work will be more than just the sum of its parts. Otherwise, why bother? I'm looking forward to being part of our team work for that, whether in a Preamble, Preface or Conclusions. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jari Arkko" À: "Milton L Mueller" , "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 3 Juin 2015 06:58:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together > Fundamentally, we are an intermediary between the involved global Internet community, the separate operational communities, NTIA and ICANN. As an intermediary, we have a review, approval and clearinghouse function but not a proposal development function. > > We review the documents for consistency with the requirements and for compatibility before we "stitch them together." If there are compatibility problems or questions about conformity to the requirements we take the lead in resolving them. > > In our final proposal, we _should_ draft an overview or preamble which makes a coherent presentation of the overall outcome. This will be important because it will "frame" the final proposal as a complete package. > > Last but not least, we will be responsible for interpreting the final stage of public comments, and for determining whether modifications are required. > > We will have plenty to do. What Milton said. And we need to do what we need to do, appearing to “add value” is not a goal by itself. In fact, organisations that unnecessarily try to add value scare me :-) Our value is in coordination and ensuring that others get going and that things fit together. I think we’re doing pretty well there. Also, for what it is worth, I much prefer an output document that has a substantive preamble but the three component proposals are kept in separate sections and not mixed. We will btw need effort to develop that preamble… The rationale for the above is that the proposals are in different spaces and indeed have different internals, even if they structurally are different and they fit together. I think the end result is much more readable if the three components are kept on their own rather than mixed. But yes, a preface/preamble is needed. Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Jun 4 10:38:01 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:38:01 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBA91AFC@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBA91AFC@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: If I recall correctly Thursday is used as a placeholder if it appears necessary... Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Narelle Clark Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:28 AM To: WUKnoben ; ICG Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Since when did the Thursday meeting for the ICG reappear? I am booked to return home on the Tuesday night, BECAUSE we cancelled that meeting… Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2015 6:32 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Dear all, The ICANN53 meeting schedule is posted at: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full Below, here is an overview the sessions that relate directly to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Thursday, June 18th: a.. ICG Working Session 1 (All Day) Friday, June 19th: a.. ICG Working Session 2 (All Day) b.. CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 (All Day) Sunday, June 21st: a.. CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Board (15:00-16:00) b.. IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session (18:30-20:00) Monday, June 22nd: a.. CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Townhall Meeting (10:30-13:00) b.. CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session (16:45-18:00) Wednesday, June 24th: a.. CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 (15:30-17:00) Thursday, June 25th: a.. CWG-Stewardship Working Session 1 (08:30-10:00) b.. CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 (10:30-12:00) c.. ICG Working Session 3 (09:00-13:00) In addition, many other sessions deal with IANA stewardship transition and accountability matters. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu Jun 4 11:48:04 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:48:04 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule In-Reply-To: References: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBA91AFC@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <3a245785712e432f95e6b1fd9943ae35@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> I had the same question on reading the minutes of the 19th May 2015 teleconference, as it was mentioned there, and, Alissa replied that: "We are keeping the June 25 session on the calendar so that those who can make it will have space and time to work on any wrap-up items we may have from the week, but the meeting will not be decisional in nature. For example, it might be a good time for us chairs to work on a response to Larry's letter while we are all in the same room together. We realize that a lot of folks may not be able to make it since it also conflicts with other sessions they will need to attend." The thread of discussion is available at: http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/internal-cg_ianacg.org/2015-May/000533.html Hope you find this useful .. Kind regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 12:38 PM To: Narelle Clark; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule If I recall correctly Thursday is used as a placeholder if it appears necessary... Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Narelle Clark Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:28 AM To: WUKnoben ; ICG Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Since when did the Thursday meeting for the ICG reappear? I am booked to return home on the Tuesday night, BECAUSE we cancelled that meeting… Narelle From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Thursday, 4 June 2015 6:32 AM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Dear all, The ICANN53 meeting schedule is posted at: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full Below, here is an overview the sessions that relate directly to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Thursday, June 18th: * ICG Working Session 1 (All Day) Friday, June 19th: * ICG Working Session 2 (All Day) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 (All Day) Sunday, June 21st: * CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Board (15:00-16:00) * IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session (18:30-20:00) Monday, June 22nd: * CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Townhall Meeting (10:30-13:00) * CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session (16:45-18:00) Wednesday, June 24th: * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 (15:30-17:00) Thursday, June 25th: * CWG-Stewardship Working Session 1 (08:30-10:00) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 (10:30-12:00) * ICG Working Session 3 (09:00-13:00) In addition, many other sessions deal with IANA stewardship transition and accountability matters. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu Jun 4 11:48:36 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:48:36 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a170082e0d441bea917b3ffb94e3489@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Thanks a million Wolf-Ulrich.. Very helpful .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 10:32 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Dear all, The ICANN53 meeting schedule is posted at: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full Below, here is an overview the sessions that relate directly to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Thursday, June 18th: * ICG Working Session 1 (All Day) Friday, June 19th: * ICG Working Session 2 (All Day) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 (All Day) Sunday, June 21st: * CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Board (15:00-16:00) * IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session (18:30-20:00) Monday, June 22nd: * CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Townhall Meeting (10:30-13:00) * CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session (16:45-18:00) Wednesday, June 24th: * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 (15:30-17:00) Thursday, June 25th: * CWG-Stewardship Working Session 1 (08:30-10:00) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 (10:30-12:00) * ICG Working Session 3 (09:00-13:00) In addition, many other sessions deal with IANA stewardship transition and accountability matters. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Thu Jun 4 12:03:03 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:03:03 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <0AF460D0-1E23-40A1-9A12-BD5EA413D040@piuha.net> <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: I also agree that it's not a matter of finding ourselves a role .. My understating is that the ICG role is to facilitate and coordinate among the operational communities on one hand and assemble and deliver the final proposal on the other .. I don't mind drafting our own, summary, introduction, preamble, letter, whatever we agree to call it, and leave the 3 separate proposals as is .. But I don't see a point then in calling each of them 'combined proposal' .. to me they are more of annexes or attachments to whatever is going to be our final delivery .. Do I understand right or am I missing something? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 9:07 AM To: Jari Arkko Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together Dear Jari, you're so right, "appearing to "add value" is not a goal in itself". The aim is not to be "appearing" anything, but to effectively add value. While scrupulously respecting our remit, hopefully the value of our work will be more than just the sum of its parts. Otherwise, why bother? I'm looking forward to being part of our team work for that, whether in a Preamble, Preface or Conclusions. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jari Arkko" À: "Milton L Mueller" , "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 3 Juin 2015 06:58:15 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together > Fundamentally, we are an intermediary between the involved global Internet community, the separate operational communities, NTIA and ICANN. As an intermediary, we have a review, approval and clearinghouse function but not a proposal development function. > > We review the documents for consistency with the requirements and for compatibility before we "stitch them together." If there are compatibility problems or questions about conformity to the requirements we take the lead in resolving them. > > In our final proposal, we _should_ draft an overview or preamble which makes a coherent presentation of the overall outcome. This will be important because it will "frame" the final proposal as a complete package. > > Last but not least, we will be responsible for interpreting the final stage of public comments, and for determining whether modifications are required. > > We will have plenty to do. What Milton said. And we need to do what we need to do, appearing to “add value” is not a goal by itself. In fact, organisations that unnecessarily try to add value scare me :-) Our value is in coordination and ensuring that others get going and that things fit together. I think we’re doing pretty well there. Also, for what it is worth, I much prefer an output document that has a substantive preamble but the three component proposals are kept in separate sections and not mixed. We will btw need effort to develop that preamble… The rationale for the above is that the proposals are in different spaces and indeed have different internals, even if they structurally are different and they fit together. I think the end result is much more readable if the three components are kept on their own rather than mixed. But yes, a preface/preamble is needed. Jari _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Jun 4 13:15:14 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2015 06:15:14 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBA91AFD@ACCAN01.accan.local> References: <0AF460D0-1E23-40A1-9A12-BD5EA413D040@piuha.net> <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBA91AFD@ACCAN01.accan.local> Message-ID: <55704F62.1090002@oracle.com> Narelle: I'm not sure we were meant to be determine the "truthfulness" of the community proposals, as much as assuring a workable compatability across all the proposals and assuring that they properly completed all elements of our RFP in a manner that was sufficient to address our best understanding of what was being requested in the NTIA conditions. Joe On 6/4/2015 12:32 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > And in violent agreement, can I suggest that perhaps our value could be in validating some of the process claims made? > > Ie documenting what was done, and the evidence the supporting systems exist. > > > Narelle > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques > Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 5:07 PM > To: Jari Arkko > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together > > Dear Jari, > > you're so right, "appearing to "add value" is not a goal in itself". The aim is not to be "appearing" anything, but to effectively add value. While scrupulously respecting our remit, hopefully the value of our work will be more than just the sum of its parts. Otherwise, why bother? > > I'm looking forward to being part of our team work for that, whether in a Preamble, Preface or Conclusions. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jari Arkko" > À: "Milton L Mueller" , "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Envoyé: Mercredi 3 Juin 2015 06:58:15 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together > > >> Fundamentally, we are an intermediary between the involved global Internet community, the separate operational communities, NTIA and ICANN. As an intermediary, we have a review, approval and clearinghouse function but not a proposal development function. >> >> We review the documents for consistency with the requirements and for compatibility before we "stitch them together." If there are compatibility problems or questions about conformity to the requirements we take the lead in resolving them. >> >> In our final proposal, we _should_ draft an overview or preamble which makes a coherent presentation of the overall outcome. This will be important because it will "frame" the final proposal as a complete package. >> >> Last but not least, we will be responsible for interpreting the final stage of public comments, and for determining whether modifications are required. >> >> We will have plenty to do. > What Milton said. > > And we need to do what we need to do, appearing to “add value” is not a goal by itself. In fact, organisations that unnecessarily try to add value scare me :-) Our value is in coordination and ensuring that others get going and that things fit together. I think we’re doing pretty well there. > > Also, for what it is worth, I much prefer an output document that has a substantive preamble but the three component proposals are kept in separate sections and not mixed. We will btw need effort to develop that preamble… > > The rationale for the above is that the proposals are in different spaces and indeed have different internals, even if they structurally are different and they fit together. I think the end result is much more readable if the three components are kept on their own rather than mixed. But yes, a preface/preamble is needed. > > Jari > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 4 13:38:12 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 13:38:12 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: <55704F62.1090002@oracle.com> References: <0AF460D0-1E23-40A1-9A12-BD5EA413D040@piuha.net> <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <7146C0FDA8771A43BEB20E18700C2E4F016FCBA91AFD@ACCAN01.accan.local> <55704F62.1090002@oracle.com> Message-ID: <1bfce5249150486ca6691d983eb342de@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> We are in a position to assess whether consensus is falsely claimed. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > joseph alhadeff > Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 9:15 AM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together > > Narelle: > > I'm not sure we were meant to be determine the "truthfulness" of the > community proposals, as much as assuring a workable compatability across > all the proposals and assuring that they properly completed all elements of > our RFP in a manner that was sufficient to address our best understanding of > what was being requested in the NTIA conditions. > > Joe > > On 6/4/2015 12:32 AM, Narelle Clark wrote: > > And in violent agreement, can I suggest that perhaps our value could be in > validating some of the process claims made? > > > > Ie documenting what was done, and the evidence the supporting systems > exist. > > > > > > Narelle > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Subrenat, Jean-Jacques > > Sent: Wednesday, 3 June 2015 5:07 PM > > To: Jari Arkko > > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together > > > > Dear Jari, > > > > you're so right, "appearing to "add value" is not a goal in itself". The aim is > not to be "appearing" anything, but to effectively add value. While > scrupulously respecting our remit, hopefully the value of our work will be > more than just the sum of its parts. Otherwise, why bother? > > > > I'm looking forward to being part of our team work for that, whether in a > Preamble, Preface or Conclusions. > > > > Best regards, > > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > > De: "Jari Arkko" > > À: "Milton L Mueller" , "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" > > > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > > Envoyé: Mercredi 3 Juin 2015 06:58:15 > > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together > > > > > >> Fundamentally, we are an intermediary between the involved global > Internet community, the separate operational communities, NTIA and > ICANN. As an intermediary, we have a review, approval and clearinghouse > function but not a proposal development function. > >> > >> We review the documents for consistency with the requirements and for > compatibility before we "stitch them together." If there are compatibility > problems or questions about conformity to the requirements we take the > lead in resolving them. > >> > >> In our final proposal, we _should_ draft an overview or preamble which > makes a coherent presentation of the overall outcome. This will be > important because it will "frame" the final proposal as a complete package. > >> > >> Last but not least, we will be responsible for interpreting the final stage > of public comments, and for determining whether modifications are > required. > >> > >> We will have plenty to do. > > What Milton said. > > > > And we need to do what we need to do, appearing to “add value” is not a > goal by itself. In fact, organisations that unnecessarily try to add value scare > me :-) Our value is in coordination and ensuring that others get going and > that things fit together. I think we’re doing pretty well there. > > > > Also, for what it is worth, I much prefer an output document that has a > substantive preamble but the three component proposals are kept in > separate sections and not mixed. We will btw need effort to develop that > preamble… > > > > The rationale for the above is that the proposals are in different spaces > and indeed have different internals, even if they structurally are different > and they fit together. I think the end result is much more readable if the > three components are kept on their own rather than mixed. But yes, a > preface/preamble is needed. > > > > Jari > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Jun 4 14:08:40 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:08:40 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule In-Reply-To: <2a170082e0d441bea917b3ffb94e3489@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <2a170082e0d441bea917b3ffb94e3489@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <38DD6C790E164F00BD53CC91309E4BC3@WUKPC> openly speaking, I copied this from Grace who provided it for the CWG. So, million thanks to her. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Manal Ismail Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 1:48 PM To: WUKnoben ; ICG Subject: RE: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Thanks a million Wolf-Ulrich.. Very helpful .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 10:32 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Dear all, The ICANN53 meeting schedule is posted at: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full Below, here is an overview the sessions that relate directly to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Thursday, June 18th: a.. ICG Working Session 1 (All Day) Friday, June 19th: a.. ICG Working Session 2 (All Day) b.. CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 (All Day) Sunday, June 21st: a.. CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Board (15:00-16:00) b.. IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session (18:30-20:00) Monday, June 22nd: a.. CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Townhall Meeting (10:30-13:00) b.. CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session (16:45-18:00) Wednesday, June 24th: a.. CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 (15:30-17:00) Thursday, June 25th: a.. CWG-Stewardship Working Session 1 (08:30-10:00) b.. CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 (10:30-12:00) c.. ICG Working Session 3 (09:00-13:00) In addition, many other sessions deal with IANA stewardship transition and accountability matters. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Jun 4 15:16:44 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:16:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: References: <0AF460D0-1E23-40A1-9A12-BD5EA413D040@piuha.net> <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > I also agree that it's not a matter of finding ourselves a role .. > My understating is that the ICG role is to facilitate and coordinate among the operational communities on one hand and assemble and deliver the final proposal on the other .. > I don't mind drafting our own, summary, introduction, preamble, letter, whatever we agree to call it, and leave the 3 separate proposals as is .. But I don't see a point then in calling each of them 'combined proposal' .. to me they are more of annexes or attachments to whatever is going to be our final delivery .. > Do I understand right or am I missing something? > > Kind Regards > --Manal > Hi Manal, I understand your question but to borrow from Joe Alhadeff's email, we are working to assure "a workable compatability across all the proposals and assuring that they properly completed all elements of our RFP in a manner that was sufficient to address our best understanding of what was being requested in the NTIA conditions", and I would add that we are all working to ensure the continued stability, security, of these identifiers, etc. etc. For me, all this is what makes it a "combined proposal". The challenge will be in getting all this reflected in the "introduction/summary", etc. FWIW, I actually thought about combining them differently as well (for the submission to NTIA) but I believe it is very important that we stay true in our submission to the way the functions are managed today. Keeping the work of the various communities intact and reinforcing this will be the most helpful to the IANA functions in the long-term. Best, Lynn From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Jun 4 15:49:12 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 11:49:12 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule In-Reply-To: <38DD6C790E164F00BD53CC91309E4BC3@WUKPC> References: <2a170082e0d441bea917b3ffb94e3489@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <38DD6C790E164F00BD53CC91309E4BC3@WUKPC> Message-ID: <001b01d09ede$019b7d00$04d27700$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, These events have been updated with location and session web pages on the subscription calendar which is available here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/events-relating-to-the-iana-functions-stewar dship-transition/. As always, if you have any questions regarding how to subscribe to the two subscription calendars available on the ICG web site, please let me or any member of the Secretariat team know. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 10:32 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 Overview of Sessions and Schedule Dear all, The ICANN53 meeting schedule is posted at: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule-full Below, here is an overview the sessions that relate directly to the IANA Stewardship Transition. Thursday, June 18th: * ICG Working Session 1 (All Day) Friday, June 19th: * ICG Working Session 2 (All Day) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 1 (All Day) Sunday, June 21st: * CCWG-Accountability Meeting with the Board (15:00-16:00) * IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability Information Session (18:30-20:00) Monday, June 22nd: * CWG-Stewardship/CCWG-Accountability Joint Townhall Meeting (10:30-13:00) * CWG-Stewardship Engagement Session (16:45-18:00) Wednesday, June 24th: * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 2 (15:30-17:00) Thursday, June 25th: * CWG-Stewardship Working Session 1 (08:30-10:00) * CCWG-Accountability Working Session 3 (10:30-12:00) * ICG Working Session 3 (09:00-13:00) In addition, many other sessions deal with IANA stewardship transition and accountability matters. Regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Jun 4 23:33:46 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:33:46 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: References: <0AF460D0-1E23-40A1-9A12-BD5EA413D040@piuha.net> <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: I think there are a few advantages to combining the proposals as the secretariat has done, with each community’s proposal contained in its own part. First, as Lynn says, this structure mirrors the oversight structures for the functions today. As we’ve seen in exercising our coordination role, while there are overlaps between the functions, those overlaps are minimal compared to the arrangements in place within each community for overseeing the IANA functions. Second, given that the names component looks like it will be far more extensive than the other two components, I think it will be quite easy for the numbers and protocol parameters responses to each RFP section to get lost in the text if the responses in each section are interleaved. We all know that most of the world’s attention is focused on names, but there will be some readers who will want the other two components to be easily locatable. Having each component in its own part serves the needs of both kinds of readers, allowing folks who just want to read about names to be able to do so by reading the bulk of the combined proposal, and allowing others to find the other two components easily. I would suggest that we make names part 1, with the other two parts afterward, once we receive the names proposal. I agree with the need for a preface to the whole document provided by the ICG. I’ll send a separate mail about that. Alissa On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > >> I also agree that it's not a matter of finding ourselves a role .. >> My understating is that the ICG role is to facilitate and coordinate among the operational communities on one hand and assemble and deliver the final proposal on the other .. >> I don't mind drafting our own, summary, introduction, preamble, letter, whatever we agree to call it, and leave the 3 separate proposals as is .. But I don't see a point then in calling each of them 'combined proposal' .. to me they are more of annexes or attachments to whatever is going to be our final delivery .. >> Do I understand right or am I missing something? >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> > > Hi Manal, > > I understand your question but to borrow from Joe Alhadeff's email, we are working to assure "a workable compatability across all the proposals and assuring that they properly completed all elements of our RFP in a manner that was sufficient to address our best understanding of what was being requested in the NTIA conditions", and I would add that we are all working to ensure the continued stability, security, of these identifiers, etc. etc. For me, all this is what makes it a "combined proposal". The challenge will be in getting all this reflected in the "introduction/summary", etc. > > FWIW, I actually thought about combining them differently as well (for the submission to NTIA) but I believe it is very important that we stay true in our submission to the way the functions are managed today. Keeping the work of the various communities intact and reinforcing this will be the most helpful to the IANA functions in the long-term. > > Best, > Lynn > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Jun 4 23:39:54 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 16:39:54 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal Message-ID: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> As has been mentioned in other threads, we will likely need to write a preface for the combined proposal. While we await the names proposal, I think we can get started with figuring out what the preface should say. So I’d like people’s thoughts on two questions. What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my head, I would say we need at the very least: - High-level summary of the proposal - High-level summary of the process used to produce the proposal — both the community processes and our process - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria I’m willing to write a first draft of the preface but would like a few volunteers to form a small editing team before we bring it back to the full ICG. Who is willing to volunteer? (Jean-Jacques, can I assume you are?) Thanks, Alissa From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 5 01:56:08 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 01:56:08 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <11e45a0f035948b1bf49352d44076920@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my head, I > would say we need at the very least: > - High-level summary of the proposal I think it's important to provide an overview that explains the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal. Not sure how we can do this until we have the final proposal, however. One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol registries are. This should be explained. Ths overview might also include references to RFC 7500 as well as some of the general principles adopted by the names and numbers communities in developing their proposals, as well as a discussion of how we see the relationship between the IANA functions for the 3 communities under the PTI model and a discussion of how each community is handling the issue of contracting or "separability." > - High-level summary of the process used to produce the proposal - both > the community processes and our process This is of secondary importance, in my opinion. Yes, a short summary of the process used is needed. What really matters here, however, is whether the final proposal has achieved the "broad community support" required by the NTIA criteria, which is part of the next item... > - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria Very important. Take each criterion in turn. Here again it would, I think, be inappropriate to start working on this until we actually have the final proposal. Of course we can describe how the numbers and protocol proposals meet the criteria but we are not entirely sure yet whether they might be slightly modified in reponse to what the names proposal does. > I'm willing to write a first draft of the preface but would like a few volunteers > to form a small editing team before we bring it back to the full ICG. Who is > willing to volunteer? (Jean-Jacques, can I assume you are?) Willing to volunteer but advance warning that I will be unable to do much in the July 15 - 24 time frame. From jari.arkko at piuha.net Fri Jun 5 10:39:50 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 13:39:50 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] IETF response to the time frame inquiry Message-ID: <8016D548-C36D-433A-858B-0FF5951290D9@piuha.net> This is a response to a query regarding transition finalisation and implementation time frames, sent to the IANAPLAN working group list by the chairs of the IANA Transition Coordination Group (ICG) on May 27th. While I am carrying this response back to the ICG, the substance of this response has been discussed in the IANAPLAN working group and the relevant parts of IETF leadership. I believe this response represents the (rough) consensus opinion that emerged in the discussion, as well as the current state of IANA arrangement updates that our leadership bodies have been working on. The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the implementation of the transition of the stewardship. In our case, most of the necessary framework is already in place and implemented in preceding years. The remaining step is an updated agreement with ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt: o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to minimize disruption in the use of the protocol parameters registries or other resources currently located at iana.org. The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated agreement. They have drafted the update and from our perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination as a final step. Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions with other parts of the process may bring additional tasks that need to be executed either before or after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs, and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning the treatment of IANA trademarks and domains. The IETF Trust has signalled that it would be willing to do this, if asked. We are awaiting coordination on this to complete, but see no problem in speedy execution once the decision is made. From our perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition, however. In addition, the names community has proposed the creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI). If the existing agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​ transition would take place as described above. That is our preference. If the final details of the PTI plan require further action from the IETF, more work and community agreement would be required. The timeline for that work cannot be set until the scope is known. Jari Arkko, IETF Chair (reporting his summary of the situation) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From Lynn at LStAmour.org Fri Jun 5 13:36:43 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 09:36:43 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: <11e45a0f035948b1bf49352d44076920@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> <11e45a0f035948b1bf49352d44076920@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 4, 2015, at 9:56 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my head, I >> would say we need at the very least: >> - High-level summary of the proposal > > I think it's important to provide an overview that explains the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal. Not sure how we can do this until we have the final proposal, however. agree… > One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol registries are. This should be explained. strongly agree (having spent much of the last two weeks in Geneva (IGF-MAG and WSIS meetings) where one would expect the knowledge of IANA to be much higher), very surprising the misconceptions that still abound. Alissa, I would be happy to be part of the editing team as well. Lynn From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Jun 5 20:39:30 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 13:39:30 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #18 - June 10 Message-ID: <4DDD1EA6-C225-4D62-854F-8700FDA12639@cooperw.in> Here is a draft agenda for our call next week. Please comment. If Martin or Milton could speak to #2 that would be great. 1) Minutes approval for calls #16 and #17 2) Update on status of CWG proposal 3) Discussion of feedback received from communities and ICANN re time frames 4) Combined IETF/RIRs proposal and preface 5) Agenda for F2F meeting in Buenos Aires 6) Post-ICANN 53 call/meeting schedule From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Jun 5 20:48:08 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2015 16:48:08 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Calls: Doodle for July-Oct teleconferences Message-ID: <01d801d09fd0$eece3610$cc6aa230$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, A friendly reminder to fill out the doodle poll for the July-Oct ICG calls if you have not already done so. Link: http://doodle.com/pacmww63ks6848bk Responses by June 10 are very much appreciated, thank you! Best Regards, Jennifer From: Jennifer Chung [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 5:46 PM To: 'internal-cg at ianacg.org' Subject: ICG Calls: Doodle for July-Oct teleconferences Dear ICG members, Please fill out following doodle poll for the July-Oct calls: http://doodle.com/pacmww63ks6848bk - Weds 15 July - Weds 29 July - Weds 12 Aug - Weds 26 Aug - Weds 9 Sept - Weds 23 Sept - Weds 7 Oct The doodle choices are for starting times only, call duration to be determined by the chairs/agenda at a later date. Please also note that this is a large poll - please expand the options to fill out your availability for all 7 calls. Please respond by Weds, 10 June, thank you! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Sat Jun 6 12:16:19 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 14:16:19 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: <11e45a0f035948b1bf49352d44076920@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> <11e45a0f035948b1bf49352d44076920@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <72BBA518F2EE40B8967676976C2F3A84@WUKPC> I think there are two "recipients" of the proposal we have to take into consideration at the time being: the "public comment community" and NTIA. I here suppose that NTIA knows what IANA is and does. Consequently there should be slightly different intros for the two purposes - or a separate intro for the public comment period on top of the preface. In this separate intro I'd place Miltons suggestion to explain what IANA is and does (the latter seems to me more important). The points for the preface itself as suggested by Alissa plus an explanation of the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal (Milton) look good. I just wonder – but I’m not yet sure – whether something should be written with regards to the work of the CCWG-accountability and how their input is taken. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Milton L Mueller Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:56 AM To: Alissa Cooper ; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal > -----Original Message----- > What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my head, I > would say we need at the very least: > - High-level summary of the proposal I think it's important to provide an overview that explains the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal. Not sure how we can do this until we have the final proposal, however. One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol registries are. This should be explained. Ths overview might also include references to RFC 7500 as well as some of the general principles adopted by the names and numbers communities in developing their proposals, as well as a discussion of how we see the relationship between the IANA functions for the 3 communities under the PTI model and a discussion of how each community is handling the issue of contracting or "separability." > - High-level summary of the process used to produce the proposal - both > the community processes and our process This is of secondary importance, in my opinion. Yes, a short summary of the process used is needed. What really matters here, however, is whether the final proposal has achieved the "broad community support" required by the NTIA criteria, which is part of the next item... > - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria Very important. Take each criterion in turn. Here again it would, I think, be inappropriate to start working on this until we actually have the final proposal. Of course we can describe how the numbers and protocol proposals meet the criteria but we are not entirely sure yet whether they might be slightly modified in reponse to what the names proposal does. > I'm willing to write a first draft of the preface but would like a few volunteers > to form a small editing team before we bring it back to the full ICG. Who is > willing to volunteer? (Jean-Jacques, can I assume you are?) Willing to volunteer but advance warning that I will be unable to do much in the July 15 - 24 time frame. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Jun 6 15:57:22 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 17:57:22 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: <72BBA518F2EE40B8967676976C2F3A84@WUKPC> References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> <11e45a0f035948b1bf49352d44076920@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <72BBA518F2EE40B8967676976C2F3A84@WUKPC> Message-ID: WOLF We need to properly understand the objectives of your proposal If I understand the matter as soon as the final DARFT is ready we will call for public comments (first public comments). We could consider the introductory part of the First CWG and/or Second CWG call for public comments or that of the First CCWG and/or Second CCWG call for public comments ( which will be soon available ).However ,such introductory parts for the above Cross Community Groups were complemented by ICANN in its official announcement for public comment My question then is why we need to get involved in this formality apart from few short paragraphs which describes the actions being taken which are already summarized in our Charter. Before proceeding further ,we need to finalize the purpose and usefulness of such work taking into account that we need to be careful that we we may prepare would not have any inconsistency with that which would normally be prepared by ICANN. Regards Kavouss 2015-06-06 14:16 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben : > I think there are two "recipients" of the proposal we have to take into > consideration at the time being: the "public comment community" and NTIA. I > here suppose that NTIA knows what IANA is and does. Consequently there > should be slightly different intros for the two purposes - or a separate > intro for the public comment period on top of the preface. > In this separate intro I'd place Miltons suggestion to explain what IANA > is *and does *(the latter seems to me more important). > > The points for the preface itself as suggested by Alissa plus an > explanation of the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal > (Milton) look good. I just wonder – but I’m not yet sure – whether > something should be written with regards to the work of the > CCWG-accountability and how their input is taken. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > From: Milton L Mueller > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:56 AM > To: Alissa Cooper ; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my > head, I > > would say we need at the very least: > > - High-level summary of the proposal > > I think it's important to provide an overview that explains the rationale > and motivation behind the overall proposal. Not sure how we can do this > until we have the final proposal, however. > > One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't > quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not > understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol > registries are. This should be explained. Ths overview might also include > references to RFC 7500 as well as some of the general principles adopted by > the names and numbers communities in developing their proposals, as well as > a discussion of how we see the relationship between the IANA functions for > the 3 communities under the PTI model and a discussion of how each > community is handling the issue of contracting or "separability." > > > - High-level summary of the process used to produce the proposal - both > > the community processes and our process > > This is of secondary importance, in my opinion. Yes, a short summary of > the process used is needed. What really matters here, however, is whether > the final proposal has achieved the "broad community support" required by > the NTIA criteria, which is part of the next item... > > > - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria > > Very important. Take each criterion in turn. Here again it would, I think, > be inappropriate to start working on this until we actually have the final > proposal. Of course we can describe how the numbers and protocol proposals > meet the criteria but we are not entirely sure yet whether they might be > slightly modified in reponse to what the names proposal does. > > > I'm willing to write a first draft of the preface but would like a few > volunteers > > to form a small editing team before we bring it back to the full ICG. > Who is > > willing to volunteer? (Jean-Jacques, can I assume you are?) > > Willing to volunteer but advance warning that I will be unable to do much > in the July 15 - 24 time frame. > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From housley at vigilsec.com Sat Jun 6 17:37:44 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 13:37:44 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> <11e45a0f035948b1bf49352d44076920@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0BE49A80-3D09-44B2-AEDF-A35AA06089C3@vigilsec.com> Alissa: > What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my head, I > would say we need at the very least: I think we need to begin with a few paragraphs on the process that the ICG used, with emphasis on the operational communities reaching consensus, and then an opportunity for comments from the public after the parts are assembled. This will be important in showing that we have met NTIA's criteria. > - High-level summary of the proposal This needs to be at a very high level. We do not want to be seen as speaking for the operational communities. Milton poins out that: > One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol registries are. This should be explained. I hope that NTIA understands this, but we must recognize that the proposal has more than one audience, so making this point clearly is needed. I am happy to be part of the editing team, but you need to keep it to a workable size however you select the team members. Russ From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sat Jun 6 18:31:29 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Sat, 06 Jun 2015 14:31:29 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?Preface_for_the_combined_proposal?= Message-ID: <20150606183007.9F1BE1C14F4@smtp.notifymdm.com> I would suggest before we get to process we have a little discussion of origin and mandate. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley [housley at vigilsec.com] Received: Saturday, 06 Jun 2015, 1:51PM To: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in] CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal Alissa: > What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my head, I > would say we need at the very least: I think we need to begin with a few paragraphs on the process that the ICG used, with emphasis on the operational communities reaching consensus, and then an opportunity for comments from the public after the parts are assembled. This will be important in showing that we have met NTIA's criteria. > - High-level summary of the proposal This needs to be at a very high level. We do not want to be seen as speaking for the operational communities. Milton poins out that: > One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol registries are. This should be explained. I hope that NTIA understands this, but we must recognize that the proposal has more than one audience, so making this point clearly is needed. I am happy to be part of the editing team, but you need to keep it to a workable size however you select the team members. Russ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Jun 7 00:44:31 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 17:44:31 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] TimelineGraphic-v11 Message-ID: <9F6A4BC0-9026-4252-9F91-9B8CD80C9ED7@cooperw.in> Attached and in Dropbox is the updated timeline graphic that reflects our discussion from call #17. Changes in this version: - There is a note of explanation on the right side. - Our individual and combined proposal assessment phases are more parallelized. - Our analysis of public comments is more parallelized with the public comment period. Once we receive the CWG proposal, we can adjust the dates (if necessary) and publish this. Alissa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TimelineGraphic-v11.xlsx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet Size: 12525 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Sun Jun 7 10:45:30 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 10:45:30 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: <20150606183007.9F1BE1C14F4@smtp.notifymdm.com> References: <20150606183007.9F1BE1C14F4@smtp.notifymdm.com> Message-ID: <53ca8bcfb0e245c3baeb4212b36fda86@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Many thanks Alissa for triggering this discussion .. I support the points you suggest .. I also agree with the essence of most of comments, in particular the point raised by Wolf-Ulrich regarding the two recipients of the proposal .. I also agree that many still do not understand the IANA function but I think we need to be cautious not to include anything in our summary that may be interpreted as criticism .. Happy to join if more volunteers are needed or await the first draft to keep the drafting team at a manageable size .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Alhadeff Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 8:31 PM To: alissa at cooperw.in; housley at vigilsec.com Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal I would suggest before we get to process we have a little discussion of origin and mandate. Sent from my Android phone using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com) -----Original Message----- From: Russ Housley [housley at vigilsec.com] Received: Saturday, 06 Jun 2015, 1:51PM To: Alissa Cooper [alissa at cooperw.in] CC: internal-cg at ianacg.org [internal-cg at ianacg.org] Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal Alissa: > What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my > head, I would say we need at the very least: I think we need to begin with a few paragraphs on the process that the ICG used, with emphasis on the operational communities reaching consensus, and then an opportunity for comments from the public after the parts are assembled. This will be important in showing that we have met NTIA's criteria. > - High-level summary of the proposal This needs to be at a very high level. We do not want to be seen as speaking for the operational communities. Milton poins out that: > One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol registries are. This should be explained. I hope that NTIA understands this, but we must recognize that the proposal has more than one audience, so making this point clearly is needed. I am happy to be part of the editing team, but you need to keep it to a workable size however you select the team members. Russ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Sun Jun 7 10:46:28 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 10:46:28 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together In-Reply-To: References: <0AF460D0-1E23-40A1-9A12-BD5EA413D040@piuha.net> <17621797.77.1433315233656.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <44eeb25514aa4a3ca85d3d164c223de7@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Many thanks Lynn and Alissa for your clarifications .. I'm fine with the suggested approach, with your clarifications, and after reading the thread on the preface/summary and its suggested structure .. This addresses my concern by providing a high level summary of one combined proposal while keeping each proposal separate as received from its relevant OC .. I understand the summary should not substitute the reading of each proposal in full but would provide some sort of an executive summary that glues everything together in a nutshell .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa at cooperw.in] Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 1:34 AM To: Lynn St.Amour Cc: Manal Ismail; internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Stitching things together I think there are a few advantages to combining the proposals as the secretariat has done, with each community's proposal contained in its own part. First, as Lynn says, this structure mirrors the oversight structures for the functions today. As we've seen in exercising our coordination role, while there are overlaps between the functions, those overlaps are minimal compared to the arrangements in place within each community for overseeing the IANA functions. Second, given that the names component looks like it will be far more extensive than the other two components, I think it will be quite easy for the numbers and protocol parameters responses to each RFP section to get lost in the text if the responses in each section are interleaved. We all know that most of the world's attention is focused on names, but there will be some readers who will want the other two components to be easily locatable. Having each component in its own part serves the needs of both kinds of readers, allowing folks who just want to read about names to be able to do so by reading the bulk of the combined proposal, and allowing others to find the other two components easily. I would suggest that we make names part 1, with the other two parts afterward, once we receive the names proposal. I agree with the need for a preface to the whole document provided by the ICG. I'll send a separate mail about that. Alissa On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:16 AM, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > On Jun 4, 2015, at 8:03 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > >> I also agree that it's not a matter of finding ourselves a role .. >> My understating is that the ICG role is to facilitate and coordinate among the operational communities on one hand and assemble and deliver the final proposal on the other .. >> I don't mind drafting our own, summary, introduction, preamble, letter, whatever we agree to call it, and leave the 3 separate proposals as is .. But I don't see a point then in calling each of them 'combined proposal' .. to me they are more of annexes or attachments to whatever is going to be our final delivery .. >> Do I understand right or am I missing something? >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> > > Hi Manal, > > I understand your question but to borrow from Joe Alhadeff's email, we are working to assure "a workable compatability across all the proposals and assuring that they properly completed all elements of our RFP in a manner that was sufficient to address our best understanding of what was being requested in the NTIA conditions", and I would add that we are all working to ensure the continued stability, security, of these identifiers, etc. etc. For me, all this is what makes it a "combined proposal". The challenge will be in getting all this reflected in the "introduction/summary", etc. > > FWIW, I actually thought about combining them differently as well (for the submission to NTIA) but I believe it is very important that we stay true in our submission to the way the functions are managed today. Keeping the work of the various communities intact and reinforcing this will be the most helpful to the IANA functions in the long-term. > > Best, > Lynn > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wuknoben at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 20:25:25 2015 From: wuknoben at gmail.com (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 22:25:25 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal Message-ID: Thanks Kavouss, please see my comments inserted (in blue) Best regards Wolf-Ulrich *From:* Kavouss Arasteh *Sent:* Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:57 PM *To:* WUKnoben *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal WOLF We need to properly understand the objectives of your proposal If I understand the matter as soon as the final DARFT is ready we will call for public comments (first public comments). We could consider the introductory part of the First CWG and/or Second CWG call for public comments or that of the First CCWG and/or Second CCWG call for public comments ( which will be soon available ).However ,such introductory parts for the above Cross Community Groups were complemented by ICANN in its official announcement for public comment My question then is why we need to get involved in this formality apart from few short paragraphs which describes the actions being taken which are already summarized in our Charter. I didn’t refer to the CWG nor the CCWG call for public comments. I think we should develop our own introductory part for the upcoming ICG call for public comments. But this introductory part should be different from the preface of the final proposal to be sent to the NTIA. The details of the different items should be discussed. I’m of the opinion that the explanation of IANA and the related business – which was suggested by Milton to become a point within the preface – should just be used in the introductory part for the upcoming ICG public comment. Before proceeding further ,we need to finalize the purpose and usefulness of such work taking into account that we need to be careful that we we may prepare would not have any inconsistency with that which would normally be prepared by ICANN. Fully agreed. Regards Kavouss 2015-06-06 14:16 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben : > I think there are two "recipients" of the proposal we have to take into > consideration at the time being: the "public comment community" and NTIA. I > here suppose that NTIA knows what IANA is and does. Consequently there > should be slightly different intros for the two purposes - or a separate > intro for the public comment period on top of the preface. > In this separate intro I'd place Miltons suggestion to explain what IANA > is *and does *(the latter seems to me more important). > > The points for the preface itself as suggested by Alissa plus an > explanation of the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal > (Milton) look good. I just wonder – but I’m not yet sure – whether > something should be written with regards to the work of the > CCWG-accountability and how their input is taken. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > From: Milton L Mueller > Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:56 AM > To: Alissa Cooper ; internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal > > > > -----Original Message----- > > What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my > head, I > > would say we need at the very least: > > - High-level summary of the proposal > > I think it's important to provide an overview that explains the rationale > and motivation behind the overall proposal. Not sure how we can do this > until we have the final proposal, however. > > One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't > quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not > understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol > registries are. This should be explained. Ths overview might also include > references to RFC 7500 as well as some of the general principles adopted by > the names and numbers communities in developing their proposals, as well as > a discussion of how we see the relationship between the IANA functions for > the 3 communities under the PTI model and a discussion of how each > community is handling the issue of contracting or "separability." > > > - High-level summary of the process used to produce the proposal - both > > the community processes and our process > > This is of secondary importance, in my opinion. Yes, a short summary of > the process used is needed. What really matters here, however, is whether > the final proposal has achieved the "broad community support" required by > the NTIA criteria, which is part of the next item... > > > - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria > > Very important. Take each criterion in turn. Here again it would, I think, > be inappropriate to start working on this until we actually have the final > proposal. Of course we can describe how the numbers and protocol proposals > meet the criteria but we are not entirely sure yet whether they might be > slightly modified in reponse to what the names proposal does. > > > I'm willing to write a first draft of the preface but would like a few > volunteers > > to form a small editing team before we bring it back to the full ICG. > Who is > > willing to volunteer? (Jean-Jacques, can I assume you are?) > > Willing to volunteer but advance warning that I will be unable to do much > in the July 15 - 24 time frame. > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 21:02:14 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 23:02:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wolf, I am sorry you misunderstood my message. Pls read it again. I said , if and only if, we need to have any introductory part, let us borrow the concept and message from the introductory part of CWG and CCWG. However, I imentioned that we do not need to write page of introduction. One or two simple paragraphs taken from our chater is more than sufficient. Regards Kavouss 2015-06-07 22:25 GMT+02:00 Wolf-Ulrich Knoben : > Thanks Kavouss, > > please see my comments inserted (in blue) > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh > *Sent:* Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:57 PM > *To:* WUKnoben > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal > > WOLF > > We need to properly understand the objectives of your proposal > > If I understand the matter as soon as the final DARFT is ready we will > call for public comments (first public comments). We could consider the > introductory part of the First CWG and/or Second CWG call for public > comments or that of the First CCWG and/or Second CCWG call for public > comments ( which will be soon available ).However ,such introductory parts > for the above Cross Community Groups were complemented by ICANN in its > official announcement for public comment > > My question then is why we need to get involved in this formality apart > from few short paragraphs which describes the actions being taken which > are already summarized in our Charter. > > > > I didn’t refer to the CWG nor the CCWG call for public comments. I think > we should develop our own introductory part for the upcoming ICG call for > public comments. But this introductory part should be different from the > preface of the final proposal to be sent to the NTIA. The details of the > different items should be discussed. I’m of the opinion that the > explanation of IANA and the related business – which was suggested by > Milton to become a point within the preface – should just be used in the > introductory part for the upcoming ICG public comment. > > > > Before proceeding further ,we need to finalize the purpose and usefulness > of such work taking into account that we need to be careful that we we may > prepare would not have any inconsistency with that which would normally be > prepared by ICANN. > > Fully agreed. > > Regards > > Kavouss > > 2015-06-06 14:16 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben : > >> I think there are two "recipients" of the proposal we have to take >> into consideration at the time being: the "public comment community" and >> NTIA. I here suppose that NTIA knows what IANA is and does. Consequently >> there should be slightly different intros for the two purposes - or a >> separate intro for the public comment period on top of the preface. >> In this separate intro I'd place Miltons suggestion to explain what IANA >> is *and does *(the latter seems to me more important). >> >> The points for the preface itself as suggested by Alissa plus an >> explanation of the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal >> (Milton) look good. I just wonder – but I’m not yet sure – whether >> something should be written with regards to the work of the >> CCWG-accountability and how their input is taken. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> From: Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:56 AM >> To: Alissa Cooper ; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my >> head, I >> > would say we need at the very least: >> > - High-level summary of the proposal >> >> I think it's important to provide an overview that explains the rationale >> and motivation behind the overall proposal. Not sure how we can do this >> until we have the final proposal, however. >> >> One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't >> quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not >> understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol >> registries are. This should be explained. Ths overview might also include >> references to RFC 7500 as well as some of the general principles adopted by >> the names and numbers communities in developing their proposals, as well as >> a discussion of how we see the relationship between the IANA functions for >> the 3 communities under the PTI model and a discussion of how each >> community is handling the issue of contracting or "separability." >> >> > - High-level summary of the process used to produce the proposal - both >> > the community processes and our process >> >> This is of secondary importance, in my opinion. Yes, a short summary of >> the process used is needed. What really matters here, however, is whether >> the final proposal has achieved the "broad community support" required by >> the NTIA criteria, which is part of the next item... >> >> > - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria >> >> Very important. Take each criterion in turn. Here again it would, I >> think, be inappropriate to start working on this until we actually have the >> final proposal. Of course we can describe how the numbers and protocol >> proposals meet the criteria but we are not entirely sure yet whether they >> might be slightly modified in reponse to what the names proposal does. >> >> > I'm willing to write a first draft of the preface but would like a few >> volunteers >> > to form a small editing team before we bring it back to the full ICG. >> Who is >> > willing to volunteer? (Jean-Jacques, can I assume you are?) >> >> Willing to volunteer but advance warning that I will be unable to do much >> in the July 15 - 24 time frame. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Jun 7 21:04:47 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 23:04:47 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> <11e45a0f035948b1bf49352d44076920@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <72BBA518F2EE40B8967676976C2F3A84@WUKPC> Message-ID: Dear All, Please carefully read my comments Introductory paragraphs are already in our CHARTER. wE JUST TAKE IT AND ADJUST IT That is all. Regards Kavouss 2015-06-07 22:13 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben : > Thanks Kavouss, > > please see my comments inserted (in blue) > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > *From:* Kavouss Arasteh > *Sent:* Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:57 PM > *To:* WUKnoben > *Cc:* internal-cg at ianacg.org > *Subject:* Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal > > WOLF > > We need to properly understand the objectives of your proposal > > If I understand the matter as soon as the final DARFT is ready we will > call for public comments (first public comments). We could consider the > introductory part of the First CWG and/or Second CWG call for public > comments or that of the First CCWG and/or Second CCWG call for public > comments ( which will be soon available ).However ,such introductory parts > for the above Cross Community Groups were complemented by ICANN in its > official announcement for public comment > > My question then is why we need to get involved in this formality apart > from few short paragraphs which describes the actions being taken which > are already summarized in our Charter. > > > > I didn’t refer to the CWG nor the CCWG call for public comments. I think > we should develop our own introductory part for the upcoming ICG call for > public comments. But this introductory part should be different from the > preface of the final proposal to be sent to the NTIA. The details of the > different items should be discussed. I’m of the opinion that the > explanation of IANA and the related business – which was suggested by > Milton to become a point within the preface – should just be used in the > introductory part for the upcoming ICG public comment. > > > > Before proceeding further ,we need to finalize the purpose and usefulness > of such work taking into account that we need to be careful that we we may > prepare would not have any inconsistency with that which would normally be > prepared by ICANN. > > Fully agreed. > > Regards > > Kavouss > > 2015-06-06 14:16 GMT+02:00 WUKnoben : > >> I think there are two "recipients" of the proposal we have to take >> into consideration at the time being: the "public comment community" and >> NTIA. I here suppose that NTIA knows what IANA is and does. Consequently >> there should be slightly different intros for the two purposes - or a >> separate intro for the public comment period on top of the preface. >> In this separate intro I'd place Miltons suggestion to explain what IANA >> is *and does *(the latter seems to me more important). >> >> The points for the preface itself as suggested by Alissa plus an >> explanation of the rationale and motivation behind the overall proposal >> (Milton) look good. I just wonder – but I’m not yet sure – whether >> something should be written with regards to the work of the >> CCWG-accountability and how their input is taken. >> >> Best regards >> >> Wolf-Ulrich >> >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> From: Milton L Mueller >> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 3:56 AM >> To: Alissa Cooper ; internal-cg at ianacg.org >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > What points are important to make in the preface? Off the top of my >> head, I >> > would say we need at the very least: >> > - High-level summary of the proposal >> >> I think it's important to provide an overview that explains the rationale >> and motivation behind the overall proposal. Not sure how we can do this >> until we have the final proposal, however. >> >> One thing I have learned from the process is that many people still don't >> quite understand that IANA is a collection of registries, and they may not >> understand how related or unrelated the names, numbers and protocol >> registries are. This should be explained. Ths overview might also include >> references to RFC 7500 as well as some of the general principles adopted by >> the names and numbers communities in developing their proposals, as well as >> a discussion of how we see the relationship between the IANA functions for >> the 3 communities under the PTI model and a discussion of how each >> community is handling the issue of contracting or "separability." >> >> > - High-level summary of the process used to produce the proposal - both >> > the community processes and our process >> >> This is of secondary importance, in my opinion. Yes, a short summary of >> the process used is needed. What really matters here, however, is whether >> the final proposal has achieved the "broad community support" required by >> the NTIA criteria, which is part of the next item... >> >> > - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria >> >> Very important. Take each criterion in turn. Here again it would, I >> think, be inappropriate to start working on this until we actually have the >> final proposal. Of course we can describe how the numbers and protocol >> proposals meet the criteria but we are not entirely sure yet whether they >> might be slightly modified in reponse to what the names proposal does. >> >> > I'm willing to write a first draft of the preface but would like a few >> volunteers >> > to form a small editing team before we bring it back to the full ICG. >> Who is >> > willing to volunteer? (Jean-Jacques, can I assume you are?) >> >> Willing to volunteer but advance warning that I will be unable to do much >> in the July 15 - 24 time frame. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Jun 7 22:36:11 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2015 15:36:11 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <45515A63-F557-4ADA-98E6-57C2BD1137BA@cooperw.in> A few thoughts in response to various suggestions in this thread: At this point I think we should focus on what preface material we need for the combined proposal that we will put out for public comment. We can edit, update, or replace it later before the proposal goes to NTIA. We should also keep in mind that we’ll have space on our web site to provide instructions and ask specific questions of the public during the public comment period, so that kind of material need not go in the preface. I think the preface should focus on the proposal itself and any explanation required to understand it (which could include a brief explanation of IANA as Milton suggested). I think our charter likely has useful language in it that we can re-use but does not sufficiently introduce the proposal on its own. If it seems premature to be developing the preface now, that’s fine. We can wait until after ICANN 53. I think we have plenty of volunteers to help with this (Milton, Lynn, Russ, Manal, Joe, and Jean-Jacques) — thank you. Alissa From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Jun 8 10:14:28 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 06:14:28 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: <45515A63-F557-4ADA-98E6-57C2BD1137BA@cooperw.in> References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> <45515A63-F557-4ADA-98E6-57C2BD1137BA@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <8343EFCB-FB98-49CC-AB0C-A6C88427CC3C@oracle.com> I think it is useful for NTIA to have the document that developed community consensus; they can skip the parts they are already familiar with. Joe Sent from my iPad > On Jun 7, 2015, at 6:36 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > A few thoughts in response to various suggestions in this thread: > > At this point I think we should focus on what preface material we need for the combined proposal that we will put out for public comment. We can edit, update, or replace it later before the proposal goes to NTIA. We should also keep in mind that we’ll have space on our web site to provide instructions and ask specific questions of the public during the public comment period, so that kind of material need not go in the preface. I think the preface should focus on the proposal itself and any explanation required to understand it (which could include a brief explanation of IANA as Milton suggested). I think our charter likely has useful language in it that we can re-use but does not sufficiently introduce the proposal on its own. > > If it seems premature to be developing the preface now, that’s fine. We can wait until after ICANN 53. > > I think we have plenty of volunteers to help with this (Milton, Lynn, Russ, Manal, Joe, and Jean-Jacques) — thank you. > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Mon Jun 8 16:02:15 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:02:15 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: <45515A63-F557-4ADA-98E6-57C2BD1137BA@cooperw.in> References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> <45515A63-F557-4ADA-98E6-57C2BD1137BA@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A92FDF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Thanks Alissa for kicking this train off and then for your overview here. In line with what I think is Kavouss's underlying point, I am not sure that "preface" is the right word for what has been proposed - it is more of an executive summary. As I read the list, it seemed to me that there are a couple of key things missing from the preface materials. As others, I agree that we need to focus on the proposal and provide a short outline of the different elements, specifically in how they address the key NTIA roles. In particular, though, we should identify where the different proposals adopt different approaches and how the bits fit together in spite of the different approaches. That surely is our main role, ensuring coherence of the whole, so any reader who has been following the story will be interested in this part. I'm not sure I really see the need for the detail about what IANA is, but wouldn't oppose. I'd see that that was more the introductory section of the text. I agree with Milton that the development of the proposal is less important - for me I'd see it as annex material. Some sort of assessment against NTIA's criteria is needed. We should also include some identification of timescales. So the outline would look something like: - High-level summary of the proposal - Key elements of the role of NTIA and how the different proposals deal with those tasks. This would include: - Where the proposals adopt different approaches - How those different approaches work together. - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria - Timescales I'd be happy to join in drafting - I note you think you have enough willing hands, but I see the absence of anyone from the customer side of the naming functions, so I might be able to fill a gap in the market! Martin -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 07 June 2015 23:36 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal A few thoughts in response to various suggestions in this thread: At this point I think we should focus on what preface material we need for the combined proposal that we will put out for public comment. We can edit, update, or replace it later before the proposal goes to NTIA. We should also keep in mind that we'll have space on our web site to provide instructions and ask specific questions of the public during the public comment period, so that kind of material need not go in the preface. I think the preface should focus on the proposal itself and any explanation required to understand it (which could include a brief explanation of IANA as Milton suggested). I think our charter likely has useful language in it that we can re-use but does not sufficiently introduce the proposal on its own. If it seems premature to be developing the preface now, that's fine. We can wait until after ICANN 53. I think we have plenty of volunteers to help with this (Milton, Lynn, Russ, Manal, Joe, and Jean-Jacques) - thank you. Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Mon Jun 8 16:32:13 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:32:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #18 - June 10 In-Reply-To: <4DDD1EA6-C225-4D62-854F-8700FDA12639@cooperw.in> References: <4DDD1EA6-C225-4D62-854F-8700FDA12639@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A93052@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> I'll be on the call and could do the update. -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: 05 June 2015 21:40 To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #18 - June 10 Importance: High Here is a draft agenda for our call next week. Please comment. If Martin or Milton could speak to #2 that would be great. 1) Minutes approval for calls #16 and #17 2) Update on status of CWG proposal 3) Discussion of feedback received from communities and ICANN re time frames 4) Combined IETF/RIRs proposal and preface 5) Agenda for F2F meeting in Buenos Aires 6) Post-ICANN 53 call/meeting schedule _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Jun 8 16:41:14 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 09:41:14 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #18 - June 10 In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A93052@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4DDD1EA6-C225-4D62-854F-8700FDA12639@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A93052@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Great, thank you. Alissa On Jun 8, 2015, at 9:32 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > I'll be on the call and could do the update. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > Sent: 05 June 2015 21:40 > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for call #18 - June 10 > Importance: High > > Here is a draft agenda for our call next week. Please comment. If Martin or Milton could speak to #2 that would be great. > > > 1) Minutes approval for calls #16 and #17 > > 2) Update on status of CWG proposal > > 3) Discussion of feedback received from communities and ICANN re time frames > > 4) Combined IETF/RIRs proposal and preface > > 5) Agenda for F2F meeting in Buenos Aires > > 6) Post-ICANN 53 call/meeting schedule > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Jun 8 16:42:46 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 09:42:46 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] IETF response to the time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: <8016D548-C36D-433A-858B-0FF5951290D9@piuha.net> References: <8016D548-C36D-433A-858B-0FF5951290D9@piuha.net> Message-ID: <80944D10-7727-43BF-92C5-6E1D590A9916@cooperw.in> Thanks Jari. Alissa On Jun 5, 2015, at 3:39 AM, Jari Arkko wrote: > This is a response to a query regarding transition finalisation and > implementation time frames, sent to the IANAPLAN working > group list by the chairs of the IANA Transition Coordination > Group (ICG) on May 27th. > > While I am carrying this response back to the ICG, the substance > of this response has been discussed in the IANAPLAN working > group and the relevant parts of IETF leadership. I believe this > response represents the (rough) consensus opinion that > emerged in the discussion, as well as the current state > of IANA arrangement updates that our leadership bodies > have been working on. > > The IETF is ready today to take the next steps in the > implementation of the transition of the stewardship. > In our case, most of the necessary framework is already > in place and implemented in preceding years. > > The remaining step is an updated agreement with > ICANN which addresses two issues. These issues are > outlined in Section 2.III in the Internet Draft > draft-ietf-ianaplan-icg-response-09.txt: > > o The protocol parameters registries are in the public domain. It > is the preference of the IETF community that all relevant parties > acknowledge that fact as part of the transition. > > o It is possible in the future that the operation of the protocol > parameters registries may be transitioned from ICANN to subsequent > operator(s). It is the preference of the IETF community that, as > part of the NTIA transition, ICANN acknowledge that it will carry > out the obligations established under C.7.3 and I.61 of the > current IANA functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA > [NTIA-Contract] to achieve a smooth transition to subsequent > operator(s), should the need arise. Furthermore, in the event of > a transition it is the expectation of the IETF community that > ICANN, the IETF, and subsequent operator(s) will work together to > minimize disruption in the use of the protocol parameters registries > or other resources currently located at iana.org. > > The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) has > decided to use an update of our yearly IETF-ICANN Service Level > Agreement (SLA) as the mechanism for this updated > agreement. They have drafted the update and from our > perspective it could be immediately executed. Once the updated > agreement is in place, the transition would be substantially > complete, with only the NTIA contract lapse or termination > as a final step. > > Of course, we are not alone in this process. Interactions > with other parts of the process may bring additional > tasks that need to be executed either before or > after the transition. First, the ICG, the RIRs, > and IETF have discussed the possibility of aligning > the treatment of IANA trademarks and domains. The > IETF Trust has signalled that it would be willing to do this, > if asked. We are awaiting coordination on this > to complete, but see no problem in speedy > execution once the decision is made. From our > perspective this is not a prerequisite for the transition, > however. > > In addition, the names community has proposed the > creation of a 'Post Transition IANA' (PTI). If the existing > agreements between the IETF and ICANN remain in place > and the SLAs discussed above are not affected, the IETF​ > transition would take place as described above. That is > our preference. If the final details of the PTI plan require > further action from the IETF, more work and community > agreement would be required. The timeline for that work > cannot be set until the scope is known. > > Jari Arkko, IETF Chair > (reporting his summary of the situation) From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Mon Jun 8 17:09:51 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 17:09:51 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline In-Reply-To: <601FD8E4-D262-47BA-9EE3-98C9E4CC6112@apnic.net> References: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> <601FD8E4-D262-47BA-9EE3-98C9E4CC6112@apnic.net> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A93161@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Sorry, I sort of missed this discussion... I agree with Paul that we do need to be realistic about timescales - ours and the operational communities'. This draft does not. In particular, as we go into the drafting phase, we probably need to think about resources. (The team supporting the CWG-Names Functions is large, supporting the very high number of conference calls and drafting. I don't think that we will be quite this intense, but we need to think carefully about what we need to produce and how we will do it.) However, I have one very significant concern - the chart shows only one consultation. I am not convinced that that is enough, nor that it is reasonable to reduce the number of consultation periods. (And this is a point I have made a number of times now. No one has said I'm wrong, but the second comment period never makes it back into the timeline.) We might be lucky and little comes out of the comments period that leads to significant new material or re-thinking. As a pessimist at heart, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. That doesn't mean that we have nothing in Dublin. But it does mean that we could be using a re-draft for discussions and an opportunity to do any fine tuning with the OCs. Martin -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: 27 May 2015 05:54 To: Alissa Cooper Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Our timeline Alissa, this looks like progress to me. Just one question below. On 22 May 2015, at 7:37, Alissa Cooper wrote: > One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline > for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times > but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to > allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we > submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission > to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to have > an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from > NTIA. > > I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is > also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: > > *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own > *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the > communities to make edits if necessary I’m not sure how the communities would “make edits” during this short period, or for what reason. I suppose this is suggested in case of conflicts identified, where the ICG may need to request clarifications or modifications from the communities? If so, then I’m not sure it is an “editing” process; it may be better described as a process of “consultation” between the IGC and community representatives, to identify solutions which would be included into the ICG’s plan, and subject to comment in the next step. Also I think this step is not just one of assessing the proposals, but it is in fact the assembly of the single ICG proposal, from those components. I would restate this step as follows: *3 weeks for us to assemble all three proposals together into a single plan, in consultation with communities if necessary regarding any interactions or conflicts Paul. > *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment > period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate > summer holidays) > *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … > *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary > *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal > > The total ends up being about 4 months. > > I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the > process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, > if the communities need more time, if the public comments received are > contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an > estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four > months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN > meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos > Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting. > > I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use our > May 27 call to continue the discussion. > > Thanks, > Alissa > > > [TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx] > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Mon Jun 8 18:07:16 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 20:07:16 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A93161@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> <601FD8E4-D262-47BA-9EE3-98C9E4CC6112@apnic.net> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A93161@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Alissa, I fully support Martin in saying that he has one very significant concern - the chart shows only one consultation. and further saying that he is not convinced that that is enough, nor that it is reasonable to reduce the number of consultation periods. (And this is a point he and many others like me made a number of times now. No one has said we were wrong ,I confirmed his views that the second comment period never makes it back into the timeline.) We might be lucky and little comes out of the comments period that leads to significant new material or re-thinking. I understand some people like ...... do not want even having one consultation and were of the view that every thing is perfect and we have to make transition even yesterday.. Unfortunately I do not share that views. For me as a member of ICG and Internet Community the second commenting period is ABOLUTELY NECESSAR AND CRUVCIAL. Please carefully consider the activities of the CWG in which as results of the two consulatations they are better covered. Once again DO RUSH. be prudent and patient Regards Kavouss 2015-06-08 19:09 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle : > Sorry, I sort of missed this discussion... > > I agree with Paul that we do need to be realistic about timescales - ours > and the operational communities'. This draft does not. > > In particular, as we go into the drafting phase, we probably need to think > about resources. (The team supporting the CWG-Names Functions is large, > supporting the very high number of conference calls and drafting. I don't > think that we will be quite this intense, but we need to think carefully > about what we need to produce and how we will do it.) > > However, I have one very significant concern - the chart shows only one > consultation. I am not convinced that that is enough, nor that it is > reasonable to reduce the number of consultation periods. (And this is a > point I have made a number of times now. No one has said I'm wrong, but > the second comment period never makes it back into the timeline.) We might > be lucky and little comes out of the comments period that leads to > significant new material or re-thinking. As a pessimist at heart, I'd love > to be pleasantly surprised. > > That doesn't mean that we have nothing in Dublin. But it does mean that > we could be using a re-draft for discussions and an opportunity to do any > fine tuning with the OCs. > > Martin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Paul Wilson > Sent: 27 May 2015 05:54 > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Our timeline > > Alissa, this looks like progress to me. Just one question below. > > On 22 May 2015, at 7:37, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline > > for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times > > but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to > > allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we > > submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission > > to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to have > > an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from > > NTIA. > > > > I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is > > also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: > > > > *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own > > *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the > > communities to make edits if necessary > > I’m not sure how the communities would “make edits” during this short > period, or for what reason. I suppose this is suggested in case of > conflicts identified, where the ICG may need to request clarifications or > modifications from the communities? If so, then I’m not sure it is an > “editing” process; it may be better described as a process of > “consultation” between the IGC and community representatives, to identify > solutions which would be included into the ICG’s plan, and subject to > comment in the next step. > > Also I think this step is not just one of assessing the proposals, but it > is in fact the assembly of the single ICG proposal, from those components. > > I would restate this step as follows: > > *3 weeks for us to assemble all three proposals together into a single > plan, in consultation with communities if necessary regarding any > interactions or conflicts > > Paul. > > > > *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment > > period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate > > summer holidays) > > *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … > > *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary > > *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal > > > > The total ends up being about 4 months. > > > > I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the > > process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, > > if the communities need more time, if the public comments received are > > contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an > > estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four > > months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN > > meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos > > Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting. > > > > I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use our > > May 27 call to continue the discussion. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > > > [TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx] > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Mon Jun 8 18:22:31 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:22:31 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline In-Reply-To: References: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> <601FD8E4-D262-47BA-9EE3-98C9E4CC6112@apnic.net> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A93161@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <5575DD67.9060305@oracle.com> Colleagues: I thought we had agreed on the call that a second consultation would be addressed as a possibility in the descriptive text and not specifically addressed in the time line as it was hard to predict details about the second consultation until we knew the scope and nature of the possible changes. Joe On 6/8/2015 2:07 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Alissa, > I fully support Martin in saying that he has one very significant > concern - the chart shows only one consultation. and further saying > that he is not convinced that that is enough, nor that it is > reasonable to reduce the number of consultation periods. (And this is > a point he and many others like me made a number of times now. No > one has said we were wrong ,I confirmed his views that the second > comment period never makes it back into the timeline.) We might be > lucky and little comes out of the comments period that leads to > significant new material or re-thinking. > I understand some people like ...... do not want even having one > consultation and were of the view that every thing is perfect and we > have to make transition even yesterday.. > Unfortunately I do not share that views. > For me as a member of ICG and Internet Community the second commenting > period is ABOLUTELY NECESSAR AND CRUVCIAL. > Please carefully consider the activities of the CWG in which as > results of the two consulatations they are better covered. > Once again DO RUSH. > be prudent and patient > Regards > Kavouss > > 2015-06-08 19:09 GMT+02:00 Martin Boyle >: > > Sorry, I sort of missed this discussion... > > I agree with Paul that we do need to be realistic about timescales > - ours and the operational communities'. This draft does not. > > In particular, as we go into the drafting phase, we probably need > to think about resources. (The team supporting the CWG-Names > Functions is large, supporting the very high number of conference > calls and drafting. I don't think that we will be quite this > intense, but we need to think carefully about what we need to > produce and how we will do it.) > > However, I have one very significant concern - the chart shows > only one consultation. I am not convinced that that is enough, > nor that it is reasonable to reduce the number of consultation > periods. (And this is a point I have made a number of times now. > No one has said I'm wrong, but the second comment period never > makes it back into the timeline.) We might be lucky and little > comes out of the comments period that leads to significant new > material or re-thinking. As a pessimist at heart, I'd love to be > pleasantly surprised. > > That doesn't mean that we have nothing in Dublin. But it does > mean that we could be using a re-draft for discussions and an > opportunity to do any fine tuning with the OCs. > > Martin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org > ] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson > Sent: 27 May 2015 05:54 > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Our timeline > > Alissa, this looks like progress to me. Just one question below. > > On 22 May 2015, at 7:37, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > > One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG > timeline > > for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times > > but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to > > allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and > before we > > submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for > transmission > > to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to > have > > an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from > > NTIA. > > > > I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, > which is > > also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: > > > > *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own > > *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the > > communities to make edits if necessary > > I’m not sure how the communities would “make edits” during this > short period, or for what reason. I suppose this is suggested in > case of conflicts identified, where the ICG may need to request > clarifications or modifications from the communities? If so, then > I’m not sure it is an “editing” process; it may be better > described as a process of “consultation” between the IGC and > community representatives, to identify solutions which would be > included into the ICG’s plan, and subject to comment in the next step. > > Also I think this step is not just one of assessing the proposals, > but it is in fact the assembly of the single ICG proposal, from > those components. > > I would restate this step as follows: > > *3 weeks for us to assemble all three proposals together into a > single plan, in consultation with communities if necessary > regarding any interactions or conflicts > > Paul. > > > > *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment > > period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate > > summer holidays) > > *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … > > *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary > > *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal > > > > The total ends up being about 4 months. > > > > I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step > of the > > process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take > longer, > > if the communities need more time, if the public comments > received are > > contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an > > estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four > > months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN > > meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos > > Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting. > > > > I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then > use our > > May 27 call to continue the discussion. > > > > Thanks, > > Alissa > > > > > > [TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx] > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Jun 8 20:26:03 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 16:26:03 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Reminder: ICG Call #18 - Wednesday, 10 June 2015, 12:00-14:00 UTC Message-ID: <021c01d0a229$5820d550$08627ff0$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, This is to kindly remind you that your ICG call #18 is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 10 June 2015** at 12:00-14:00 UTC See time zone conversion here: http://bit.ly/1L8dAac Announcement: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-announces-upcoming-conference-calls/ You should have received an outlook calendar invite which includes the call details. If you cannot find it, please send the Secretariat an email (off-list) and we will make sure to send you a copy prior to the call. Should you wish to opt-out of the calendar invite list and use the calendar subscription function here: https://www.ianacg.org/calendar/icg-events/, please let the Secretariat know at admin at icgsec.asia. Documents will be projected in the virtual meeting room - https://icann.adobeconnect.com/icg. To avoid echo, please make sure to mute your computer speakers as live audio from the meeting is being broadcast from the virtual meeting room. If you plan to use Skype to join the bridge, see attached instructions on how to mute the virtual meeting room. Note that the virtual meeting room will also be used to monitor the queue. To join the queue, press the "raise your hand" icon in the Adobe Connect room: If you are not in a position to join the virtual meeting room today, please let the Secretariat team know. Should you wish to follow the meeting in a different language: AR, ES, FR, RU, ZH and PT interpretation services are available for this call. Please note that Livestreaming translations in AR, FR and PT will be available for the first 90 minutes of the call, thereafter, please join the Virtual Meeting Room for the remaining 30 minutes. Please also note that ICG members who join the conversation through the Adobe Connect microphone must use English when speaking to allow for the global multistakeholder community and ICG members to follow the English stream. Agenda proposed by Alissa 1) Minutes approval for calls #16 and #17 2) Update on status of CWG proposal 3) Discussion of feedback received from communities and ICANN re time frames 4) Combined IETF/RIRs proposal and preface 5) Agenda for F2F meeting in Buenos Aires 6) Post-ICANN 53 call/meeting schedule As always, please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions, concerns or need a dial-out. Thank you! Best regards ICG Secretariat Team -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 4319 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Jun 9 18:12:54 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:12:54 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for ICG F2F #5 - June 18-19 Message-ID: A draft agenda for our F2F meeting next week is below. Please comment. === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === == June 18 == 9:00-9:15 Agenda review 9:15-10:00 CWG names proposal pre-assessment 10:00-10:30 Planning for combined proposal assessment - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment - Assessment calendar 10:30-11:00 Break 11:00-11:30 Coordination with CCWG-Accountability work 11:30-12:30 Time frame discussion - ICG timeline - Response to NTIA letter 12:30-13:30 Lunch 13:30-15:00 Public comment period planning - Questions for the public 15:00-15:30 Break 15:30-17:00 Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) == June 19 == 9:00-9:15 Agenda review 9:15-10:30 Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) 10:30-11:00 Break 11:00-12:00 Planning for public outreach before and after public comment period - Materials needed - Audiences to target - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-15:00 Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) 15:00-15:30 Break 15:30-15:45 Planning for June 25 working session 15:45-16:15 Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning 16:15-17:00 Wrap up From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Jun 9 18:54:06 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 11:54:06 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Our timeline In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A93161@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <142234ED-F742-4EBD-A28D-DC594A207109@cooperw.in> <601FD8E4-D262-47BA-9EE3-98C9E4CC6112@apnic.net> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A93161@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: Hi Martin, Some responses inline. On Jun 8, 2015, at 10:09 AM, Martin Boyle wrote: > Sorry, I sort of missed this discussion... > > I agree with Paul that we do need to be realistic about timescales - ours and the operational communities'. This draft does not. > > In particular, as we go into the drafting phase, we probably need to think about resources. (The team supporting the CWG-Names Functions is large, supporting the very high number of conference calls and drafting. I don't think that we will be quite this intense, but we need to think carefully about what we need to produce and how we will do it.) I’m not sure exactly what “drafting” you mean, but the general topic of managing the public comment period is on our agenda for the F2F meeting. The secretariat has paid close attention to the process in the CWG and CCWG. I agree that we need to make sure everyone is ready and knows what to do to support the proposal finalization. > > However, I have one very significant concern - the chart shows only one consultation. I am not convinced that that is enough, nor that it is reasonable to reduce the number of consultation periods. (And this is a point I have made a number of times now. No one has said I'm wrong, but the second comment period never makes it back into the timeline.) We might be lucky and little comes out of the comments period that leads to significant new material or re-thinking. As a pessimist at heart, I'd love to be pleasantly surprised. I would have to check the minutes, but my recollection of our discussion of TimelineGraphic-v9 was that folks preferred to strive for something more along the lines of the optimized timeline. That is why TimelineGraphic-v10 reflects the single comment period. Then the conclusion of the group on the last call was that we should add a note to explain that the timeline might be extended based on a variety of contingencies, including the need for a second public comment period. So that is now reflected in TimeGraphic-v11 , as Joe pointed out. Alissa > > That doesn't mean that we have nothing in Dublin. But it does mean that we could be using a re-draft for discussions and an opportunity to do any fine tuning with the OCs. > > Martin > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson > Sent: 27 May 2015 05:54 > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Our timeline > > Alissa, this looks like progress to me. Just one question below. > > On 22 May 2015, at 7:37, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> One item we did not discuss on the last call was our own ICG timeline >> for finalizing the proposal. We have discussed this at various times >> but I don’t think we have firmly settled on how much time we plan to >> allocate for the time after we receive the CWG proposal and before we >> submit the final combined proposal to the ICANN Board for transmission >> to NTIA. We need not nail this down precisely, but we do need to have >> an estimate that we can factor into our response to the letter from >> NTIA. >> >> I have re-attached to this email the latest timeline graphic, which is >> also in Dropbox. It includes the following approximate allocations: >> >> *2 weeks for us to assess the CWG proposal on its own >> *3 weeks for us to assess all three proposals together and for the >> communities to make edits if necessary > > I’m not sure how the communities would “make edits” during this short period, or for what reason. I suppose this is suggested in case of conflicts identified, where the ICG may need to request clarifications or modifications from the communities? If so, then I’m not sure it is an “editing” process; it may be better described as a process of “consultation” between the IGC and community representatives, to identify solutions which would be included into the ICG’s plan, and subject to comment in the next step. > > Also I think this step is not just one of assessing the proposals, but it is in fact the assembly of the single ICG proposal, from those components. > > I would restate this step as follows: > > *3 weeks for us to assemble all three proposals together into a single plan, in consultation with communities if necessary regarding any interactions or conflicts > > Paul. > > >> *4-5 weeks for public comment (realizing that if the public comment >> period lands in August, we may want to use 5 weeks to accommodate >> summer holidays) >> *3 weeks for us to assess the public comments, which overlaps with … >> *2 weeks for the communities to make edits if necessary >> *2 weeks to prepare the final proposal >> >> The total ends up being about 4 months. >> >> I think this is an aggressive yet doable timeline. At any step of the >> process we could get hung up (e.g., if our assessment(s) take longer, >> if the communities need more time, if the public comments received are >> contradictory, etc.), but I think we can assume 4 months as an >> estimate and explain the contingencies when we respond to NTIA. Four >> months is also approximately the amount of time between ICANN >> meetings, so if we receive the CWG proposal at or around the Buenos >> Aires meeting we can aim to finish at the Dublin meeting. >> >> I’d like to have some discussion of this on the list and then use our >> May 27 call to continue the discussion. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> >> >> [TimelineGraphic-v10.xlsx] >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Tue Jun 9 19:46:54 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:46:54 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for ICG F2F #5 - June 18-19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: All, some additional data: Just so everyone understand the constraints set by interpreters: Breaks should be at least 15 min in the morning and 15 min in the afternoon, and 60 min for lunch. Each session between breaks is to be no longer than 2h30m. I think having "rules" like this is probably good for us as well :-) Patrik On 9 Jun 2015, at 21:12, Alissa Cooper wrote: > A draft agenda for our F2F meeting next week is below. Please comment. > > === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === > > == June 18 == > > 9:00-9:15 > Agenda review > > 9:15-10:00 > CWG names proposal pre-assessment > > 10:00-10:30 > Planning for combined proposal assessment > - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment > - Assessment calendar > > 10:30-11:00 > Break > > 11:00-11:30 > Coordination with CCWG-Accountability work > > 11:30-12:30 > Time frame discussion > - ICG timeline > - Response to NTIA letter > > 12:30-13:30 > Lunch > > 13:30-15:00 > Public comment period planning > - Questions for the public > > 15:00-15:30 > Break > > 15:30-17:00 > Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) > > > == June 19 == > > 9:00-9:15 > Agenda review > > 9:15-10:30 > Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) > > 10:30-11:00 > Break > > 11:00-12:00 > Planning for public outreach before and after public comment period - Materials needed > - Audiences to target > - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries > > 12:00-13:00 > Lunch > > 13:00-15:00 > Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) > > 15:00-15:30 > Break > > 15:30-15:45 > Planning for June 25 working session > > 15:45-16:15 > Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning > > 16:15-17:00 > Wrap up > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Jun 9 23:52:00 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 16:52:00 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry References: <55777BA4.8050202@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <40664B41-E3A8-4E97-9ABC-5465CE85DF23@cooperw.in> Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani > Subject: Re: Time frame inquiry > Date: June 9, 2015 at 4:49:56 PM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir , Paul Wilson , Alan Barrett , Nurani Nimpuno > > Dear Alissa and the ICG members, > > > > Thank you for the invitation to the CRISP Team, for an opportunity to provide input about how much time the numbers community believes will need, to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed, prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > The CRISP Team will work together with the RIRs to provide inputs to the ICG by the end of June, and currently at the stage of listing the factors which affects the implementation timeline. > In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us either through our ICG liaisons or mailing lists, if you have any inquiries about the status of preparing this input to the ICG. > > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno > Chair, Vice Chair, the CRISP Team > > On 2015/05/28 1:19, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Dear CRISP team, >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >> >> "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community�s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.� >> >> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >> >> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Tue Jun 9 23:53:06 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:53:06 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry References: <55777BA4.8050202@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: Dear all, Hereby sharing correspondence from the CRISP team on the transition timeframe. Paul. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg Forwarded message: > From: Izumi Okutani > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir > , Paul Wilson , Alan Barrett > , Nurani Nimpuno > Subject: Re: Time frame inquiry > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:49:56 +0900 > > Dear Alissa and the ICG members, > > > > Thank you for the invitation to the CRISP Team, for an opportunity to > provide input about how much time the numbers community believes will > need, to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of > the transition proposal that the communities have identified as > needing to be completed, prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > The CRISP Team will work together with the RIRs to provide inputs to > the ICG by the end of June, and currently at the stage of listing the > factors which affects the implementation timeline. > In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us either through > our ICG liaisons or mailing lists, if you have any > inquiries about the status of preparing this input to the ICG. > > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno > Chair, Vice Chair, the CRISP Team > > On 2015/05/28 1:19, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Dear CRISP team, >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling >> >> that included the following text: >> >> "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that >> the community provide us with an update on the status of the >> transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the >> community�s views as to how long it will take to finalize the >> transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request >> that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us >> with your views before the end of June, which will give you the >> opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder >> community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this >> feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will >> need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items >> identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as >> prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to >> the ending of the contract.� >> >> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the >> operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal >> development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that >> the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to >> the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, >> agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how >> many weeks or months do you think your community will need to >> complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in >> our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand >> that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best >> estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >> >> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG >> representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 >> UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to >> communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> > From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Jun 10 11:47:52 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 04:47:52 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] Time frame inquiry (corrected) References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Grace Abuhamad > Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Time frame inquiry (corrected) > Date: June 9, 2015 at 2:55:51 PM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper , "'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'" > Cc: Mohamed El Bashir , Patrik Fältström , Milton L Mueller , Martin Boyle , Xiaodong Lee > > 9 June 2015 > > > Dear Alissa, Patrik, Mohamed, Martin, Milton, and Xiaodong, > > > In response to your 27 May request the CWG-Stewardship has been developing its response to the ICG RFP, which includes an implementation plan. We refer you to Section IV. D. (Pages 40 – 42) for further detail. For all changes, including changes that do not require further assessment by the ICG, we expect that the community will work with ICANN in implementation. > > As you noted in your letter, the exact timeframes are difficult to predict, especially since the CWG-Stewardship recommends the establishment of a new legal entity the Post-Transition IANA (“PTI”), an affiliate of ICANN. In creating PTI, the CWG-Stewardship also envisions the development of a new contract (between ICANN and PTI) for which the group has received a sample term sheet, but has not developed further. > > According to our independent counsel’s assessment, the CWG-Stewardship expects that the incorporation of PTI could be done in a short period of time. The longer lead-time items include: > > 1. Identifying the ICANN assets that would need to be assigned to PTI and assigning those assets under an appropriate agreement. > 2. Drafting the PTI governance documents (i.e. articles of incorporation and bylaws). > 3. Drafting and finalizing the ICANN-PTI Contract. > > Our legal counsel estimates that the above items could take 3-4 months depending on complexity and need for multiple iterations of such documents. Furthermore, additional uncertainty of timing is created by the fact that ICANN has not yet assessed the CWG-Stewardship’s proposal for an implementation timeline. There will also be other factors to consider, such as seeking to ensure ICANN’s tax-exempt status, for which our independent legal counsel could not estimate. > > The CWG-Stewardship RFP response highlights other elements for implementation such as the Customer Standing Committee and the IANA Function Review. These elements are expected to be incorporated into the ICANN Bylaws as part of the CCWG-Accountability’s work. The timeline for implementation of new ICANN Bylaws has not yet been confirmed, but is actively being considered by the CCWG-Accountability as they develop their implementation timeline. > > We have focused our response to you on the PTI, the essential, and possibly longest, implementation portion of the CWG-Stewardship proposal. We refer you to Section IV. D. (Pages 40 – 42) for further detail on the implementation list. > > The CWG-Stewardship will send the final proposal to the chartering organizations by 11th of June in time for them to deal with it at the ICANN 53 meeting in Buenos Aires in Argentina. > > If you have any questions regarding any aspects of the proposal, its development, and its implementation we are at your disposal. > > > Regards, > > Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson > CWG-Stewardship Co-Chairs > > From: Alissa Cooper > Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 at 12:25 PM > To: "'cwg-stewardship at icann.org'" > Cc: Mohamed El Bashir , Patrik Fältström > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] Time frame inquiry (corrected) > > My apologies, the first version of this email that was sent was missing one question. Please find the corrected version below. > > ---- > > Dear CWG, > > The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: > > "I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” > > The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete proposal development? From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate a current estimate. We understand that these time frames may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimates and an explanation of factors contributing to those estimates. > > If you could provide us an initial response via our liaisons to the CWG (Martin Boyle, Milton Mueller, and Xiaodong Lee) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. > > Thanks, > Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Wed Jun 10 12:35:36 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:35:36 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Preface for the combined proposal In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A92FDF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4BD7B017-76C5-4EAF-8564-28E95AD0AF1B@cooperw.in> <45515A63-F557-4ADA-98E6-57C2BD1137BA@cooperw.in> <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81A92FDF@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <50B20F7F-032A-4376-B819-91FF17CB3374@piuha.net> Martin, all, > As others, I agree that we need to focus on the proposal and provide a short outline of the different elements, specifically in how they address the key NTIA roles. In particular, though, we should identify where the different proposals adopt different approaches and how the bits fit together in spite of the different approaches. That surely is our main role, ensuring coherence of the whole, so any reader who has been following the story will be interested in this part. Yes. Although I think perhaps the focus should be on us explaining why the proposal is complete and consistent. I.e., not only focusing on the differences/consistency question. But it certainly needs to be covered. > I'm not sure I really see the need for the detail about what IANA is, but wouldn't oppose. I'd see that that was more the introductory section of the text. > > I agree with Milton that the development of the proposal is less important - for me I'd see it as annex material. I think all of these items are important. Just like the actual proposals, we too need to provide a small explanation of the process regarding the whole. > Some sort of assessment against NTIA's criteria is needed. Yes. > We should also include some identification of timescales. > > So the outline would look something like: > > - High-level summary of the proposal > - Key elements of the role of NTIA and how the different proposals deal with those tasks. This would include: > - Where the proposals adopt different approaches > - How those different approaches work together. And how the whole proposal is complete > - Our assessment of how/why the proposal meets the NTIA criteria > - Timescales > > I'd be happy to join in drafting Likewise (but with limited cycles). Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Jun 10 14:42:06 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:42:06 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18: Chat Transcript and Attendance list Message-ID: <003c01d0a38b$a08c3830$e1a4a890$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 18. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies. Thank you! ICG Members: Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) James Bladel (GNSO) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Apologies: Demi Getschko (ISOC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Call 18 Chat transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 124484 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 10 15:19:41 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:19:41 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18: Chat Transcript and Attendance list In-Reply-To: <003c01d0a38b$a08c3830$e1a4a890$@icgsec.asia> References: <003c01d0a38b$a08c3830$e1a4a890$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Didn't realize that the Canadian Internet Forum overlapped with our meeting - I was on a panel at the same time. Sorry I missed From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 10:42 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18: Chat Transcript and Attendance list Dear All, Please find the chat transcript (attached) and the attendance roll call (below) for Call 18. Please let me know if you note any discrepancies. Thank you! ICG Members: Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) James Bladel (GNSO) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Apologies: Demi Getschko (ISOC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Kuo Wei Wu (ICANN Board Liaison) Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Jun 10 19:40:33 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:40:33 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list Message-ID: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the two lists below: Summary of Decisions Taken: 1. Secretariat to publish approved minutes for ICG Call 16 and 17. Summary of Action Items: 1. Cooper to write back to the CRISP Team to ask for a substantive update regarding implementation timeline by 17 June (before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5). 2. Boyle to follow up with the CWG-IANA co-chairs re parallelizing the implementation steps, and any further clarification in terms of overall timeframe. 3. Cooper to circulate the outline of the combined proposal preface (noting that there will be missing pieces due to not having received the Names proposal yet) to the drafting team before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. 4. ICG Chairs, with assistance from the Secretariat, to add to the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a discussion time slot for the ICG to further discuss Wilson’s proposal for a multi-step implementation of the final combined proposal. 5. ICG Chairs to add to the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a discussion time slot to discuss possible ICG talking points at ICANN sessions. 6. Fältström and Mundy, as the representatives of SSAC, to share their pre-assessment of the Names Proposal to the internal-cg mailing list next week. 7. Cooper to draft questions and send more information regarding the ICG public comment period and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Jun 10 20:52:08 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:52:08 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: <55777BA4.8050202@nic.ad.jp> References: <0C3D21D2-7139-44C2-9CB1-7A252287E3E9@cooperw.in> <55777BA4.8050202@nic.ad.jp> Message-ID: <76C1EFC9-F441-4CAC-9EF6-76093D22F566@cooperw.in> Hi Izumi, Thanks. Since we owe NTIA a response by the end of June, we would appreciate any substantive details you can provide by June 17 at 23:59 UTC, even if you are still working on a final response at that time. Receiving a final response later in June is still welcome. Thank you, Alissa On Jun 9, 2015, at 4:49 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote: > Dear Alissa and the ICG members, > > > > Thank you for the invitation to the CRISP Team, for an opportunity to provide input about how much time the numbers community believes will need, to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed, prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract. > > The CRISP Team will work together with the RIRs to provide inputs to the ICG by the end of June, and currently at the stage of listing the factors which affects the implementation timeline. > In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us either through our ICG liaisons or mailing lists, if you have any inquiries about the status of preparing this input to the ICG. > > > > Best Regards, > Izumi Okutani, Nurani Nimpuno > Chair, Vice Chair, the CRISP Team > > On 2015/05/28 1:19, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> Dear CRISP team, >> >> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Larry Strickling that included the following text: >> >> "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community�s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.� >> >> The ICG is therefore gathering input about how much time the operational communities believe they will need to complete proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities). From start to finish, approximately how many weeks or months do you think your community will need to complete the implementation of these aspects? We asked about this in our RFP but would appreciate an up-to-date estimate. We understand that this may be difficult to predict; we would appreciate your best estimate and an explanation of factors contributing to that estimate. >> >> If you could provide us an initial response via your ICG representatives (Paul Wilson and Alan Barrett) by June 9 at 23:59 UTC, that would be much appreciated. If you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >> > From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 06:19:11 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:19:11 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> References: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: Alissa I do not understand the objectives of Multistep Implementation at all I disagreed with that .A healthy discussion neither allowed . I strongly oppose to any action which is unilaterally raised and in particular, if it is not consistent t with our Charter. Moreover, the issue of implementation is a complex matter and encompasses the authority of ICG KAVOUSS 2015-06-10 21:40 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Chung : > Dear All, > > > > Please find the two lists below: > > > > Summary of Decisions Taken: > > 1. Secretariat to publish approved minutes for ICG Call 16 and 17. > > Summary of Action Items: > > 1. Cooper to write back to the CRISP Team to ask for a substantive > update regarding implementation timeline by 17 June (before ICG > Face-to-Face Meeting 5). > > 2. Boyle to follow up with the CWG-IANA co-chairs re parallelizing > the implementation steps, and any further clarification in terms of overall > timeframe. > > 3. Cooper to circulate the outline of the combined proposal preface > (noting that there will be missing pieces due to not having received the > Names proposal yet) to the drafting team before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. > > 4. ICG Chairs, with assistance from the Secretariat, to add to the > ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a discussion time slot for the ICG to > further discuss Wilson’s proposal for a multi-step implementation of the > final combined proposal. > > 5. ICG Chairs to add to the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a > discussion time slot to discuss possible ICG talking points at ICANN > sessions. > > 6. Fältström and Mundy, as the representatives of SSAC, to share > their pre-assessment of the Names Proposal to the internal-cg mailing list > next week. > > 7. Cooper to draft questions and send more information regarding > the ICG public comment period and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list > before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Jennifer > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Thu Jun 11 09:07:54 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:07:54 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: References: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> Dear Kavouss, I do not think you and Alissa (and myself) do disagree on how ICG can do its work as efficient as possible. I think we might misunderstand each other. Let me try to explain what I hear. First, given Paul did rise the issue, regardless of how much he is in minority, and given the reaction, I see as co-chair of ICG that we need to talk about this issue. I am not the one that tell people to not rise whatever issues they want. So, we obviously have to talk about it again. And if there is, as many did point out in the chat, consensus for a specific path forward (which I do believe we are following btw), the discussion should not need to take so long time. Secondly, regarding what can be viewed as "multiple steps", I claim ICG have discussed, do agree, and should try to move forward as far as possible with the material we have -- BUT NOT LONGER. As Alissa explained on the call, one step we can NOT move forward with before we have responses from all three OC is the public consultation. So there is no disagreement there. What I think we can do is to discuss what the structure of our document should be and other things. Yes, we risk have to redo that work when we get the final proposal from CWG names, but I am prepared on taking that risk. We can gain so much time by preparing that I feel we should allow us to do that. If we did nothing before we had all three OC proposals, we should in the extreme not have any telephone conferences or email conversation -- which of course would be strange. So, the only thing we seem to disagree on is whether we should allow Paul to make his point and other ICG members to respond to it -- including the ability to reference earlier discussions in ICG. I feel as co-chair I must support such a thing, because "just saying no" to an ICG member rising a point is not healthy for us. If we do have consensus for a different path than what the ICG member is rising, the discussion should be short, and because of that, we can allow the discussion to take place. Patrik On 11 Jun 2015, at 8:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Alissa > I do not understand the objectives of Multistep Implementation at all I disagreed with that .A healthy discussion neither allowed . > I strongly oppose to any action which is unilaterally raised and in particular, if it is not consistent t with our Charter. > Moreover, the issue of implementation is a complex matter and encompasses the authority of ICG > KAVOUSS > > > 2015-06-10 21:40 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Chung : > >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> Please find the two lists below: >> >> >> >> Summary of Decisions Taken: >> >> 1. Secretariat to publish approved minutes for ICG Call 16 and 17. >> >> Summary of Action Items: >> >> 1. Cooper to write back to the CRISP Team to ask for a substantive >> update regarding implementation timeline by 17 June (before ICG >> Face-to-Face Meeting 5). >> >> 2. Boyle to follow up with the CWG-IANA co-chairs re parallelizing >> the implementation steps, and any further clarification in terms of overall >> timeframe. >> >> 3. Cooper to circulate the outline of the combined proposal preface >> (noting that there will be missing pieces due to not having received the >> Names proposal yet) to the drafting team before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. >> >> 4. ICG Chairs, with assistance from the Secretariat, to add to the >> ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a discussion time slot for the ICG to >> further discuss Wilson’s proposal for a multi-step implementation of the >> final combined proposal. >> >> 5. ICG Chairs to add to the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a >> discussion time slot to discuss possible ICG talking points at ICANN >> sessions. >> >> 6. Fältström and Mundy, as the representatives of SSAC, to share >> their pre-assessment of the Names Proposal to the internal-cg mailing list >> next week. >> >> 7. Cooper to draft questions and send more information regarding >> the ICG public comment period and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list >> before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Jennifer >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jun 11 10:56:05 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:56:05 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> References: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <55796945.3040107@ripe.net> Patrik, this is very sensible. You sum up the consensus of the group very well and I support to proceed as you suggest. Daniel On 11.06.15 11:07 , Patrik Fältström wrote: > Dear Kavouss, > > I do not think you and Alissa (and myself) do disagree on how ICG can do its work as efficient as possible. I think we might misunderstand each other. Let me try to explain what I hear. > > First, given Paul did rise the issue, regardless of how much he is in minority, and given the reaction, I see as co-chair of ICG that we need to talk about this issue. I am not the one that tell people to not rise whatever issues they want. So, we obviously have to talk about it again. And if there is, as many did point out in the chat, consensus for a specific path forward (which I do believe we are following btw), the discussion should not need to take so long time. > > Secondly, regarding what can be viewed as "multiple steps", I claim ICG have discussed, do agree, and should try to move forward as far as possible with the material we have -- BUT NOT LONGER. > > As Alissa explained on the call, one step we can NOT move forward with before we have responses from all three OC is the public consultation. So there is no disagreement there. > > What I think we can do is to discuss what the structure of our document should be and other things. Yes, we risk have to redo that work when we get the final proposal from CWG names, but I am prepared on taking that risk. We can gain so much time by preparing that I feel we should allow us to do that. > > If we did nothing before we had all three OC proposals, we should in the extreme not have any telephone conferences or email conversation -- which of course would be strange. > > So, the only thing we seem to disagree on is whether we should allow Paul to make his point and other ICG members to respond to it -- including the ability to reference earlier discussions in ICG. I feel as co-chair I must support such a thing, because "just saying no" to an ICG member rising a point is not healthy for us. > > If we do have consensus for a different path than what the ICG member is rising, the discussion should be short, and because of that, we can allow the discussion to take place. > > Patrik > > On 11 Jun 2015, at 8:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > >> Alissa >> I do not understand the objectives of Multistep Implementation at all I disagreed with that .A healthy discussion neither allowed . >> I strongly oppose to any action which is unilaterally raised and in particular, if it is not consistent t with our Charter. >> Moreover, the issue of implementation is a complex matter and encompasses the authority of ICG >> KAVOUSS >> >> >> 2015-06-10 21:40 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Chung : >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find the two lists below: >>> >>> >>> >>> Summary of Decisions Taken: >>> >>> 1. Secretariat to publish approved minutes for ICG Call 16 and 17. >>> >>> Summary of Action Items: >>> >>> 1. Cooper to write back to the CRISP Team to ask for a substantive >>> update regarding implementation timeline by 17 June (before ICG >>> Face-to-Face Meeting 5). >>> >>> 2. Boyle to follow up with the CWG-IANA co-chairs re parallelizing >>> the implementation steps, and any further clarification in terms of overall >>> timeframe. >>> >>> 3. Cooper to circulate the outline of the combined proposal preface >>> (noting that there will be missing pieces due to not having received the >>> Names proposal yet) to the drafting team before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. >>> >>> 4. ICG Chairs, with assistance from the Secretariat, to add to the >>> ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a discussion time slot for the ICG to >>> further discuss Wilson’s proposal for a multi-step implementation of the >>> final combined proposal. >>> >>> 5. ICG Chairs to add to the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a >>> discussion time slot to discuss possible ICG talking points at ICANN >>> sessions. >>> >>> 6. Fältström and Mundy, as the representatives of SSAC, to share >>> their pre-assessment of the Names Proposal to the internal-cg mailing list >>> next week. >>> >>> 7. Cooper to draft questions and send more information regarding >>> the ICG public comment period and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list >>> before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Jennifer >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 11:31:26 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 13:31:26 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> References: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <705A29C4-827D-4421-8723-2D9C18BB177A@gmail.com> Patrik Tks for your comprehensive reply What I do not want to do is to act on contradiction with our Charter. And to do something which technically inefficient It seems that some people are in hurry and wished yo make transition as of yesterday, I have lid ten to then carefully I know them and their organisation/community since many years. I have listen to their views in webinars. They want total independence. They have stated that between transition and independence they opt for the second. I do not want unilateral proclamation of independence. We must work together. By the way I was terribly and incorrectly treated yesterday by the chair. I do no longer allow any one no natter at what position he or she is interrupt my intervention in an aggressive and offensive manner. I no longer tolerate such misbehaviour Regards MR Arasteh / Sent from my iPhone > On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:07, Patrik Fältström wrote: > > Dear Kavouss, > > I do not think you and Alissa (and myself) do disagree on how ICG can do its work as efficient as possible. I think we might misunderstand each other. Let me try to explain what I hear. > > First, given Paul did rise the issue, regardless of how much he is in minority, and given the reaction, I see as co-chair of ICG that we need to talk about this issue. I am not the one that tell people to not rise whatever issues they want. So, we obviously have to talk about it again. And if there is, as many did point out in the chat, consensus for a specific path forward (which I do believe we are following btw), the discussion should not need to take so long time. > > Secondly, regarding what can be viewed as "multiple steps", I claim ICG have discussed, do agree, and should try to move forward as far as possible with the material we have -- BUT NOT LONGER. > > As Alissa explained on the call, one step we can NOT move forward with before we have responses from all three OC is the public consultation. So there is no disagreement there. > > What I think we can do is to discuss what the structure of our document should be and other things. Yes, we risk have to redo that work when we get the final proposal from CWG names, but I am prepared on taking that risk. We can gain so much time by preparing that I feel we should allow us to do that. > > If we did nothing before we had all three OC proposals, we should in the extreme not have any telephone conferences or email conversation -- which of course would be strange. > > So, the only thing we seem to disagree on is whether we should allow Paul to make his point and other ICG members to respond to it -- including the ability to reference earlier discussions in ICG. I feel as co-chair I must support such a thing, because "just saying no" to an ICG member rising a point is not healthy for us. > > If we do have consensus for a different path than what the ICG member is rising, the discussion should be short, and because of that, we can allow the discussion to take place. > > Patrik > >> On 11 Jun 2015, at 8:19, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> Alissa >> I do not understand the objectives of Multistep Implementation at all I disagreed with that .A healthy discussion neither allowed . >> I strongly oppose to any action which is unilaterally raised and in particular, if it is not consistent t with our Charter. >> Moreover, the issue of implementation is a complex matter and encompasses the authority of ICG >> KAVOUSS >> >> >> 2015-06-10 21:40 GMT+02:00 Jennifer Chung : >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> >>> >>> Please find the two lists below: >>> >>> >>> >>> Summary of Decisions Taken: >>> >>> 1. Secretariat to publish approved minutes for ICG Call 16 and 17. >>> >>> Summary of Action Items: >>> >>> 1. Cooper to write back to the CRISP Team to ask for a substantive >>> update regarding implementation timeline by 17 June (before ICG >>> Face-to-Face Meeting 5). >>> >>> 2. Boyle to follow up with the CWG-IANA co-chairs re parallelizing >>> the implementation steps, and any further clarification in terms of overall >>> timeframe. >>> >>> 3. Cooper to circulate the outline of the combined proposal preface >>> (noting that there will be missing pieces due to not having received the >>> Names proposal yet) to the drafting team before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. >>> >>> 4. ICG Chairs, with assistance from the Secretariat, to add to the >>> ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a discussion time slot for the ICG to >>> further discuss Wilson’s proposal for a multi-step implementation of the >>> final combined proposal. >>> >>> 5. ICG Chairs to add to the ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 agenda a >>> discussion time slot to discuss possible ICG talking points at ICANN >>> sessions. >>> >>> 6. Fältström and Mundy, as the representatives of SSAC, to share >>> their pre-assessment of the Names Proposal to the internal-cg mailing list >>> next week. >>> >>> 7. Cooper to draft questions and send more information regarding >>> the ICG public comment period and circulate to the internal-cg mailing list >>> before ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Jennifer >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jun 11 12:00:44 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:00:44 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: <705A29C4-827D-4421-8723-2D9C18BB177A@gmail.com> References: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> <705A29C4-827D-4421-8723-2D9C18BB177A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5579786C.4050606@ripe.net> On 11.06.15 13:31 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > By the way I was terribly and incorrectly treated yesterday by the chair. > I do no longer allow any one no natter at what position he or she is interrupt my intervention in an aggressive and offensive manner. > I no longer tolerate such misbehaviour Kavouss, it appears to me that your reaction here is disproportionate. What happened in my perception is the following: Paul made a suggestion that caused quite some reactions. In order to finish the current agenda point in time, the chair asked everyone to defer discussion of that particular suggestion until the current discussion was completed. There was support for this from the group. Subsequently you made an intervention about Paul's suggestion and the chair tried to remind you that discussion of that suggestion was not currently open. This is fully within the chair's prerogative. It is also something that the group expects the chair to do in order to achieve a timely and orderly conduct of business. Personally I certainly did not perceive any aggression or offensiveness from the chair in her attempt to call you to order. I felt at the time that she allowed you to go on for too long initially as you were clearly out of order. There was no misbehaviour. I fully support both the action of the chair as well as the manner in which it was conducted. I am sure this is all due to misunderstanding, probably caused by a bad audio connection. I regret that I have to disagree with you and go on record with this message. But your action of going on record on this list in the way you did leave me no alternative. Be assured that there are no personal feelings behind this message other than great respect for you. Daniel From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jun 11 12:27:02 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:27:02 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure Message-ID: <55797E96.2020508@ripe.net> I'd like to clarify and expand on my contribution to the previous call regarding the document content and structure. Our charter says: "The IANA stewardship transition coordination group (ICG) has one deliverable: a proposal to the U.S. Commerce Department National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding the transition of NTIA’s stewardship of the IANA functions to the global multi-stakeholder community." So I propose to produce exactly that deliverable using as few words as we are capable of. NTIA does not need a primer on what IANA is. NTIA does not need a review of the environment or history. What NTIA needs is the substance of the proposal and how it was produced. Nothing more, nothing less. I oppose - producing various versions for different audiences, - including explanatory material not intended for NTIA, and - copying or paraphrasing any existing documents. If we can avoid it we should not even copy the responses we received from the operational communities. We should reference them. I am absolutely fine with collecting and providing a packaged bundle of all the referenced documents for convenience and for the purpose of avoiding references that might no longer be available or whose content might change. Rationale: We have to both produce and achieve consensus on our deliverable in a very short time. The more we focus on the chartered deliverable the less energy we waste producing unnecessary words and the easier it will be to achieve consensus on the final product. As I said on the call: we can have explanatory material such as summaries, info-graphics or even cartoons ;-) produced that may help to socialise our deliverable and gain acceptance of it. But that is not our main job. Let's stay focussed. Daniel From Lynn at LStAmour.org Thu Jun 11 13:15:50 2015 From: Lynn at LStAmour.org (Lynn St.Amour) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 09:15:50 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: <5579786C.4050606@ripe.net> References: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> <705A29C4-827D-4421-8723-2D9C18BB177A@gmail.com> <5579786C.4050606@ripe.net> Message-ID: Dear Kavouss, Daniel's email beat me to it, so I will be brief. I also fully support the action of our Chair. She was following sound protocol, trying to manage to our agreed agenda, being respectful of the time allotted for the call, and trying to ensure everyone who wanted to speak could. I note that there were a few comments in the chat room asking everyone to be respectful in tone and language, and that applies to everyone on the call, and equally on email. As good as call facilities are today, they are no substitute for face to face, and misunderstandings can unfortunately, occur more easily. Looking forward to resuming our cordial and collaborative discussions. We have a lot of important work ahead in the next months, and the work we have all done to date is frankly quite amazing for a global project of this complexity and import. With best regards, Lynn On Jun 11, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > On 11.06.15 13:31 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> By the way I was terribly and incorrectly treated yesterday by the chair. >> I do no longer allow any one no natter at what position he or she is interrupt my intervention in an aggressive and offensive manner. >> I no longer tolerate such misbehaviour > > Kavouss, > > it appears to me that your reaction here is disproportionate. What > happened in my perception is the following: > > Paul made a suggestion that caused quite some reactions. In order to > finish the current agenda point in time, the chair asked everyone to > defer discussion of that particular suggestion until the current > discussion was completed. There was support for this from the group. > Subsequently you made an intervention about Paul's suggestion and the > chair tried to remind you that discussion of that suggestion was not > currently open. This is fully within the chair's prerogative. It is also > something that the group expects the chair to do in order to achieve a > timely and orderly conduct of business. > > Personally I certainly did not perceive any aggression or offensiveness > from the chair in her attempt to call you to order. I felt at the time > that she allowed you to go on for too long initially as you were clearly > out of order. > > There was no misbehaviour. I fully support both the action of the chair > as well as the manner in which it was conducted. > > I am sure this is all due to misunderstanding, probably caused by a bad > audio connection. > > I regret that I have to disagree with you and go on record with this > message. But your action of going on record on this list in the way you > did leave me no alternative. > > Be assured that there are no personal feelings behind this message other > than great respect for you. > > Daniel > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 13:40:23 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:40:23 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: <5579786C.4050606@ripe.net> References: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> <705A29C4-827D-4421-8723-2D9C18BB177A@gmail.com> <5579786C.4050606@ripe.net> Message-ID: <7DCEDF66-9F90-4B84-AE7D-4484A3C245E1@gmail.com> Daniel This is a democratic process. You said what you thought and I said what I thought. However,it is not up to any one if us to make value judgement of others, statement Pls remember our personal e- mail exchange Gluten tag Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 11 Jun 2015, at 14:00, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > >> On 11.06.15 13:31 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >> >> By the way I was terribly and incorrectly treated yesterday by the chair. >> I do no longer allow any one no natter at what position he or she is interrupt my intervention in an aggressive and offensive manner. >> I no longer tolerate such misbehaviour > > Kavouss, > > it appears to me that your reaction here is disproportionate. What > happened in my perception is the following: > > Paul made a suggestion that caused quite some reactions. In order to > finish the current agenda point in time, the chair asked everyone to > defer discussion of that particular suggestion until the current > discussion was completed. There was support for this from the group. > Subsequently you made an intervention about Paul's suggestion and the > chair tried to remind you that discussion of that suggestion was not > currently open. This is fully within the chair's prerogative. It is also > something that the group expects the chair to do in order to achieve a > timely and orderly conduct of business. > > Personally I certainly did not perceive any aggression or offensiveness > from the chair in her attempt to call you to order. I felt at the time > that she allowed you to go on for too long initially as you were clearly > out of order. > > There was no misbehaviour. I fully support both the action of the chair > as well as the manner in which it was conducted. > > I am sure this is all due to misunderstanding, probably caused by a bad > audio connection. > > I regret that I have to disagree with you and go on record with this > message. But your action of going on record on this list in the way you > did leave me no alternative. > > Be assured that there are no personal feelings behind this message other > than great respect for you. > > Daniel > > > From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 13:42:27 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:42:27 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: References: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> <705A29C4-827D-4421-8723-2D9C18BB177A@gmail.com> <5579786C.4050606@ripe.net> Message-ID: Lynn Tks Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 11 Jun 2015, at 15:15, Lynn St.Amour wrote: > > Dear Kavouss, > > Daniel's email beat me to it, so I will be brief. > > I also fully support the action of our Chair. She was following sound protocol, trying to manage to our agreed agenda, being respectful of the time allotted for the call, and trying to ensure everyone who wanted to speak could. > > I note that there were a few comments in the chat room asking everyone to be respectful in tone and language, and that applies to everyone on the call, and equally on email. As good as call facilities are today, they are no substitute for face to face, and misunderstandings can unfortunately, occur more easily. > > Looking forward to resuming our cordial and collaborative discussions. We have a lot of important work ahead in the next months, and the work we have all done to date is frankly quite amazing for a global project of this complexity and import. > > With best regards, > > Lynn > > > >> On Jun 11, 2015, at 8:00 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 11.06.15 13:31 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: >>> >>> By the way I was terribly and incorrectly treated yesterday by the chair. >>> I do no longer allow any one no natter at what position he or she is interrupt my intervention in an aggressive and offensive manner. >>> I no longer tolerate such misbehaviour >> >> Kavouss, >> >> it appears to me that your reaction here is disproportionate. What >> happened in my perception is the following: >> >> Paul made a suggestion that caused quite some reactions. In order to >> finish the current agenda point in time, the chair asked everyone to >> defer discussion of that particular suggestion until the current >> discussion was completed. There was support for this from the group. >> Subsequently you made an intervention about Paul's suggestion and the >> chair tried to remind you that discussion of that suggestion was not >> currently open. This is fully within the chair's prerogative. It is also >> something that the group expects the chair to do in order to achieve a >> timely and orderly conduct of business. >> >> Personally I certainly did not perceive any aggression or offensiveness >> from the chair in her attempt to call you to order. I felt at the time >> that she allowed you to go on for too long initially as you were clearly >> out of order. >> >> There was no misbehaviour. I fully support both the action of the chair >> as well as the manner in which it was conducted. >> >> I am sure this is all due to misunderstanding, probably caused by a bad >> audio connection. >> >> I regret that I have to disagree with you and go on record with this >> message. But your action of going on record on this list in the way you >> did leave me no alternative. >> >> Be assured that there are no personal feelings behind this message other >> than great respect for you. >> >> Daniel >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Jun 11 15:21:18 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:21:18 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG sessions in Buenos Aires Message-ID: <006201d0a45a$467bba30$d3732e90$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Following a few changes due to space, technical, and time constraints, here are the updated details for the ICG Face-to-Face meeting sessions below: Venue map: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/maps Thursday 18 June - ICG Meeting 5, Day 1 Time: 09:00-17:00 ART / 12:00-20:00 UTC (Time conversion here: http://bit.ly/1SU4gwy) Location: San Telmo Remote participation: The Adobe Connect room will not be the usual ICG link, it will be the one assigned to the meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-santelmo Languages: All details will be available on the session page here: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg Friday 19 June - ICG Meeting 5, Day 2 Time: 09:00-17:00 ART / 12:00-20:00 UTC (Time conversion here: http://bit.ly/1dcNk3v) Location: San Telmo Remote participation: The Adobe Connect room will not be the usual ICG link, it will be the one assigned to the meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-santelmo Languages: All details will be available on the session page here: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg Thursday 25 June - ICG wrap-up session Time: 09:00-13:00 ART / 12:00-16:00 UTC (Time conversion here: http://bit.ly/1ePAR6R) Location: Retiro C Remote participation: The Adobe Connect room will not be the usual ICG link, it will be the one assigned to the meeting room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-retiroc Languages: This session will not have live stream interpretation and will only be in English - this is so we can resume our original time slot as requested. The calendar invites will be updated and re-sent accordingly to all ICG members- apologies in advance for the deluge of emails! For all ICG members who will be participating remotely, please send your direct-dial telephone numbers to the Secretariat at admin at icgsec.asia should you wish to speak during the sessions - the Adobe Connect interventions will be in writing only. As always, please feel free to contact me or any member of the Secretariat team should you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Jun 11 15:31:57 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 08:31:57 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F Message-ID: I know some folks have conflicts with one or both of the F2F meeting days next week. It would be helpful to know who to expect in the room and remotely. If you will not be attending one or both of the F2F days in person, please reply to this note and indicate which day(s) you will not be there and whether you will participate remotely. Thanks, Alissa From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Thu Jun 11 16:11:22 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5579B32A.8050204@oracle.com> I will attend most of both days remotely, but will need to excuse myself for some periods during that time for other obligations. On 6/11/2015 11:31 AM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I know some folks have conflicts with one or both of the F2F meeting days next week. It would be helpful to know who to expect in the room and remotely. If you will not be attending one or both of the F2F days in person, please reply to this note and indicate which day(s) you will not be there and whether you will participate remotely. > > Thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Jun 11 16:25:21 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 16:25:21 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ICG In person Thursday. CWG-ACCT Friday. Saturday-Sunday GNSO. Thanks‹ J. On 6/11/15, 8:31 , "Alissa Cooper" wrote: >I know some folks have conflicts with one or both of the F2F meeting days >next week. It would be helpful to know who to expect in the room and >remotely. If you will not be attending one or both of the F2F days in >person, please reply to this note and indicate which day(s) you will not >be there and whether you will participate remotely. > >Thanks, >Alissa >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Thu Jun 11 16:44:32 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 18:44:32 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I may not be available part of the day on which CCWG holds meeting Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 11 Jun 2015, at 17:31, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > I know some folks have conflicts with one or both of the F2F meeting days next week. It would be helpful to know who to expect in the room and remotely. If you will not be attending one or both of the F2F days in person, please reply to this note and indicate which day(s) you will not be there and whether you will participate remotely. > > Thanks, > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mbashir at mbash.net Thu Jun 11 17:22:31 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 20:22:31 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the visa is not issued until Sunday, unfortunately I will not be in BA and will participate remotely. Kind Regards, Mohamed > On 11 Jun 2015, at 19:44, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > > I may not be available part of the day on which CCWG holds meeting > Kavouss > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 11 Jun 2015, at 17:31, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >> I know some folks have conflicts with one or both of the F2F meeting days next week. It would be helpful to know who to expect in the room and remotely. If you will not be attending one or both of the F2F days in person, please reply to this note and indicate which day(s) you will not be there and whether you will participate remotely. >> >> Thanks, >> Alissa >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 11 17:29:25 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:29:25 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure In-Reply-To: <55797E96.2020508@ripe.net> References: <55797E96.2020508@ripe.net> Message-ID: <950a64ec1347461da0e5f41485b916c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Hmmm, I missed what looks to have been an exciting meeting, so discount the following comments if they are uninformed or misinterpreting based on lack of context, but I am reacting only to Daniel K's statement: > I oppose > > - producing various versions for different audiences, > - including explanatory material not intended for NTIA, and > - copying or paraphrasing any existing documents. Daniel seems to be operating from the assumption that it is only the NTIA that will read and react to our proposal. Is he forgetting the fact that before we can send it to the NTIA we are required to have a public comment period? This proposal may well require explanations or summaries that are appropriate for a general public audience but would not be needed for the NTIA. --MM From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jun 11 20:01:27 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:01:27 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure In-Reply-To: <950a64ec1347461da0e5f41485b916c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <55797E96.2020508@ripe.net> <950a64ec1347461da0e5f41485b916c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5579E917.6040707@ripe.net> On 11.06.15 19:29 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hmmm, I missed what looks to have been an exciting meeting, so discount the following comments if they are uninformed or misinterpreting based on lack of context, but I am reacting only to Daniel K's statement: > >> I oppose >> >> - producing various versions for different audiences, >> - including explanatory material not intended for NTIA, and >> - copying or paraphrasing any existing documents. > > Daniel seems to be operating from the assumption that it is only the NTIA that will read and react to our proposal. Is he forgetting the fact that before we can send it to the NTIA we are required to have a public comment period? This proposal may well require explanations or summaries that are appropriate for a general public audience but would not be needed for the NTIA. Rest assured that I am not operating from that assumption. See my message: > As I said on the call: we can have explanatory material such as > summaries, info-graphics or even cartoons produced that may help to > socialise our deliverable and gain acceptance of it. But that is not our > main job. Daniel From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Jun 11 20:05:56 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:05:56 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Call 18 Decisions taken list, Action items list In-Reply-To: <7DCEDF66-9F90-4B84-AE7D-4484A3C245E1@gmail.com> References: <00fd01d0a3b5$5391b350$fab519f0$@icgsec.asia> <913BAF87-EDAB-4E1C-A44B-B3B965607405@frobbit.se> <705A29C4-827D-4421-8723-2D9C18BB177A@gmail.com> <5579786C.4050606@ripe.net> <7DCEDF66-9F90-4B84-AE7D-4484A3C245E1@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5579EA24.9010904@ripe.net> On 11.06.15 15:40 , Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > Daniel > This is a democratic process. > You said what you thought and I said what I thought. However,it is not up to any one if us to make value judgement of others, statement > Pls remember our personal e- mail exchange > Gluten tag > Kavouss > "terribly", "incorrectly", "agressive", "offensive", "misbehaviour": your words Daniel From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Thu Jun 11 21:17:49 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:17:49 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thursday: ICG in person Friday: most ICG in person until 4:30 pm; but maybe 1 hr at the CCWG meeting Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 5:31 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F I know some folks have conflicts with one or both of the F2F meeting days next week. It would be helpful to know who to expect in the room and remotely. If you will not be attending one or both of the F2F days in person, please reply to this note and indicate which day(s) you will not be there and whether you will participate remotely. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Jun 11 22:08:37 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 00:08:37 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1378184.414.1434060514346.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Thanks Alissa. I will be actively participating on - 18 June from around 10:00, because my flight from Paris is expected to land in Buenos Aires at 08:05. - 19 June: no hindrance. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Juin 2015 17:31:57 Objet: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F I know some folks have conflicts with one or both of the F2F meeting days next week. It would be helpful to know who to expect in the room and remotely. If you will not be attending one or both of the F2F days in person, please reply to this note and indicate which day(s) you will not be there and whether you will participate remotely. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mnuduma at yahoo.com Thu Jun 11 22:32:12 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2015 22:32:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F In-Reply-To: <1378184.414.1434060514346.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <1378184.414.1434060514346.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <583936334.1673010.1434061932930.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> Still expecting entry visa. If it is not issued by Sunday 14th June, I will be participating remotely. Mary Uduma   On Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:08 PM, "Subrenat, Jean-Jacques" wrote: Thanks Alissa. I will be actively participating on - 18 June from around 10:00, because my flight from Paris is expected to land in Buenos Aires at 08:05. - 19 June: no hindrance. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Juin 2015 17:31:57 Objet: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F I know some folks have conflicts with one or both of the F2F meeting days next week. It would be helpful to know who to expect in the room and remotely. If you will not be attending one or both of the F2F days in person, please reply to this note and indicate which day(s) you will not be there and whether you will participate remotely. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Jun 12 08:12:01 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 10:12:01 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <557A9451.3000101@ripe.net> I expect to attend remotely for the totality of all three sessions. Once the agenda is finalised I might plan some naps during times when I expect to have little to add to the discussion. Daniel From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Jun 12 19:52:02 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 12:52:02 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for ICG F2F #5 - June 18-19 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80BF4CCA-F98F-4D5B-A1AA-61AAB4BB670F@cooperw.in> Revised agenda is below, reflecting our discussion on call #18. === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === == June 18 == 9:00-9:15 Agenda review 9:15-10:00 CWG names proposal pre-assessment 10:00-10:30 Planning for combined proposal assessment - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment - Assessment calendar 10:30-11:00 Break 11:00-12:00 Multi-step implementation 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-15:00 Public comment period planning - Executive summary for combined proposal - Questions for the public 15:00-15:30 Break 15:30-16:00 Update on CCWG-Accountability work 16:00-17:00 Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) == June 19 == 9:00-9:15 Agenda review 9:15-10:45 Public outreach before and after public comment period - Materials needed - Audiences to target - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries 10:45-11:15 Break 11:15-12:30 Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) 12:30-13:30 Lunch 13:30-14:00 Talking points for ICANN meeting week 14:00-15:00 Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) 15:00-15:30 Break 15:30-15:45 Planning for June 25 working session 15:45-16:00 Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning 16:00-17:00 Wrap up On Jun 9, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > All, some additional data: > > Just so everyone understand the constraints set by interpreters: > > Breaks should be at least 15 min in the morning and 15 min in the afternoon, and 60 min for lunch. > > Each session between breaks is to be no longer than 2h30m. > > I think having "rules" like this is probably good for us as well :-) > > Patrik > > On 9 Jun 2015, at 21:12, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> A draft agenda for our F2F meeting next week is below. Please comment. >> >> === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === >> >> == June 18 == >> >> 9:00-9:15 >> Agenda review >> >> 9:15-10:00 >> CWG names proposal pre-assessment >> >> 10:00-10:30 >> Planning for combined proposal assessment >> - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment >> - Assessment calendar >> >> 10:30-11:00 >> Break >> >> 11:00-11:30 >> Coordination with CCWG-Accountability work >> >> 11:30-12:30 >> Time frame discussion >> - ICG timeline >> - Response to NTIA letter >> >> 12:30-13:30 >> Lunch >> >> 13:30-15:00 >> Public comment period planning >> - Questions for the public >> >> 15:00-15:30 >> Break >> >> 15:30-17:00 >> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >> >> >> == June 19 == >> >> 9:00-9:15 >> Agenda review >> >> 9:15-10:30 >> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >> >> 10:30-11:00 >> Break >> >> 11:00-12:00 >> Planning for public outreach before and after public comment period - Materials needed >> - Audiences to target >> - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries >> >> 12:00-13:00 >> Lunch >> >> 13:00-15:00 >> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >> >> 15:00-15:30 >> Break >> >> 15:30-15:45 >> Planning for June 25 working session >> >> 15:45-16:15 >> Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning >> >> 16:15-17:00 >> Wrap up >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Jun 12 22:10:09 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:10:09 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry References: Message-ID: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in> Begin forwarded message: > From: Theresa Swinehart > Subject: Re: Time frame inquiry > Date: June 12, 2015 at 1:00:34 PM PDT > To: Alissa Cooper > Cc: Patrik Fältström , "Mohamed El Bashir" , "steve at shinkuro.com" > > Hi Alissa, > > Steve asked that I send the note below on his behalf. > > Kind regards, > > Theresa > > _______________ > Dear Alissa, > > Thank you for your 1 June 2015 note regarding NTIA’s communication to the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability on the status of the transition planning, and the associated time-frames for finalizing the proposal and the implementation. > > The Board looks forward to receiving the proposals upon completion by the community. As noted before, upon receipt of the proposals, we will transmit them to NTIA, accompanied by any additional comments we may have already reflected in our input to the community > > In this regard, as to the status of the proposals, we’re pleased to see the operational communities hard at work in reaching conclusions, and look forward to the submission of the naming community proposal to the ICG. With regards to the accountability process, we welcome the progress made and look forward to the conclusion of the recommendations on Workstream 1. > > As to the steps leading to the final execution of the proposals and recommendations, we see several phases, that can be outlined at a high level as: > · Preparation of the proposal and forwarding to NTIA; > · The period in which NTIA and the US Government review the proposal, including any work ICANN needs to undertake during that time-frame; > · Path leading to implementation upon sign-off by the US Government and the ICANN Board. > · Final implementation and operationalization > > With regards to the path leading to implementation, the Board believes that it will be necessary for ICANN to follow its normal processes for dealing with reviews. This will include the normal process for bylaws changes, where the proposed new text will be published for public comment before Board approval, and the normal process of taking public comment for important implementation options and details. > > With regards to timelines, we expect the implementation time-frames applicable for each of the operational communities to vary. For example, we would expect the IETF and RIR parts of the ICG proposal, as currently prepared, to be fairly straight-forward and we’d estimate each requires a matter of weeks to finalize. The naming community proposal will take longer - we’d estimate several months - given the new elements that need to be implemented, including, for example, bylaws changes and structural changes necessary to form the PTI. Another example is that time will be required for the community to select representation to, the CSC. To the extent any parts of the ICG proposal rely on the Accountability process recommendations, implementation time-lines will need to take those into consideration. > > With regards to the Accountability process, it’s premature to determine how long implementation will take. Experiences from the ATRT and organizational review processes though indicate that it could take at least two ICANN meeting cycles. The timeline will be strongly impacted by the implementation mechanisms needed for the proposed accountability improvements. > > To the extent possible, we will strive to do advance planning to prepare for putting elements into place with regards to the respective proposals, to then require as short a time-frame as possible to implement and operationalize any final parts necessary for the conclusion of the contract. This includes, for example, any pre-work with respect to identifying the bylaws changes. > > In working with the community, and in reviewing the community timelines, we are preparing for receipt of the ICG proposal around the ICANN 54 meeting, together with the CCWG Workstream 1 proposal. We anticipate that there will then be a time frame established for the NTIA’s review, during which we can begin implementation work. The timeline of implementation will be impacted most directly by, for example, complexities within the proposals, the need for the community to utilize ICANN’s meetings for any elements relating to community mechanisms, or proposals that require additional implementation work to complete. > > Steve >> >>> From: Steve Crocker >>> Subject: Re: Time frame inquiry >>> Date: June 1, 2015 at 8:39:38 PM EDT >>> To: Alissa Cooper >>> Cc: "Stephen D. Crocker" , internal-cg at ianacg.org, Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir >>> >>> Alissa, >>> >>> Thanks very much for your message. We will coordinate internally and respond to you and the operational communities. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 1, 2015, at 8:08 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Steve, >>>> >>>> The ICG chairs recently received a letter from Sec. Strickling [1] that included the following text: >>>> >>>> "Accordingly, to assist us in our planning for the fall, I ask that the community provide us with an update on the status of the transition planning and the associated timeframes, including the community’s views as to how long it will take to finalize the transition plan and implement it after it is approved. We request that you and the three primary customer working groups provide us with your views before the end of June, which will give you the opportunity to discuss these issues with the multistakeholder community at the June ICANN meeting in Argentina. In providing this feedback, please keep in mind that the United States Government will need sufficient time to evaluate the proposal and that all work items identified either by the ICG and the CCWG-Accountability as prerequisites for the transition will need to be implemented prior to the ending of the contract.” >>>> >>>> The ICG understands that the CCWG chairs received a similar letter. >>>> >>>> The ICG is inquiring with the operational communities about how much time the communities believe they will need to complete their proposal development and implement the aspects of the transition proposal that the communities have identified as needing to be completed prior to the expiry of the NTIA contract (e.g., creation of new contracts, agreements, or entities) [2][3][4]. The ICG expects ICANN to provide input directly to those communities as appropriate as they formulate their responses to us, but if there are time frames associated with internal ICANN processes or any other ICANN-specific implementation information that the ICANN Board thinks we should know in formulating our response to Sec. Strickling, we would appreciate if you could share that with us directly by June 9 at 23:59 UTC for consideration by the ICG. Should you have further thoughts to communicate to us later in June, that would be welcome as well. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Alissa, Patrik, and Mohamed >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/correspondence/Letter-to-ICG-May-6.pdf >>>> [2] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ianaplan/current/msg01847.html >>>> [3] https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-May/000563.html >>>> [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/2015-May/003402.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Jun 12 23:32:45 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:32:45 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Of Interest: Volume 6: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions Message-ID: <015701d0a568$171442d0$453cc870$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Volume 6: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions has been posted and is available here: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discu ssions Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Sat Jun 13 14:12:37 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 14:12:37 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in> References: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <276895353c81451b81fdcf288fe8f883@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> With regards to the path leading to implementation, the Board believes that it will be necessary for ICANN to follow its normal processes for dealing with reviews. This will include the normal process for bylaws changes, where the proposed new text will be published for public comment before Board approval, and the normal process of taking public comment for important implementation options and details. MM: This seems a bit strange to me. As I understand it, we are talking about bylaw changes required to implement the finalized ICG proposal that has been approved by the NTIA. For ICANN to follow its "normal process for dealing with reviews" implies that ICANN itself is in control of _making_ the changes rather than _implementing_ the changes required by the proposal. Publishing the proposed text for public comment seems duplicative given that ICG will have already gone through a public comment process. It also would seem to provide an avenue for changing the proposal in response to comments made in its own process. So if I understand what is being proposed by ICANN here, I would view it as both duplicative and potentially destabilizing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Sat Jun 13 16:06:13 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 16:06:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: <276895353c81451b81fdcf288fe8f883@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in>, <276895353c81451b81fdcf288fe8f883@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4410ABE9-68E8-4C29-8351-99091A199D60@verisign.com> I share Milton's concerns. Regards, Keith Drazek On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: With regards to the path leading to implementation, the Board believes that it will be necessary for ICANN to follow its normal processes for dealing with reviews. This will include the normal process for bylaws changes, where the proposed new text will be published for public comment before Board approval, and the normal process of taking public comment for important implementation options and details. MM: This seems a bit strange to me. As I understand it, we are talking about bylaw changes required to implement the finalized ICG proposal that has been approved by the NTIA. For ICANN to follow its “normal process for dealing with reviews” implies that ICANN itself is in control of _making_ the changes rather than _implementing_ the changes required by the proposal. Publishing the proposed text for public comment seems duplicative given that ICG will have already gone through a public comment process. It also would seem to provide an avenue for changing the proposal in response to comments made in its own process. So if I understand what is being proposed by ICANN here, I would view it as both duplicative and potentially destabilizing. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Sat Jun 13 20:00:53 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 20:00:53 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: <4410ABE9-68E8-4C29-8351-99091A199D60@verisign.com> References: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in>, <276895353c81451b81fdcf288fe8f883@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>, <4410ABE9-68E8-4C29-8351-99091A199D60@verisign.com> Message-ID: Agree with Keith and Milton. Perhaps we can ask Staff to review the process that ICANN would use to amend its bylaws, and ensure that those functions (Public Comment, Legal Review, etc.) are included in the final review of the ICG proposal, so there would be no need to perform these steps again. Thanks-- J. _______ James Bladel GoDaddy Sent using Outlook for iPad _____________________________ From: Drazek, Keith > Sent: Saturday, June 13, 2015 11:06 Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: ICG > I share Milton's concerns. Regards, Keith Drazek On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Milton L Mueller < mueller at syr.edu> wrote: With regards to the path leading to implementation, the Board believes that it will be necessary for ICANN to follow its normal processes for dealing with reviews. This will include the normal process for bylaws changes, where the proposed new text will be published for public comment before Board approval, and the normal process of taking public comment for important implementation options and details. MM: This seems a bit strange to me. As I understand it, we are talking about bylaw changes required to implement the finalized ICG proposal that has been approved by the NTIA. For ICANN to follow its "normal process for dealing with reviews" implies that ICANN itself is in control of _making_ the changes rather than _implementing_ the changes required by the proposal. Publishing the proposed text for public comment seems duplicative given that ICG will have already gone through a public comment process. It also would seem to provide an avenue for changing the proposal in response to comments made in its own process. So if I understand what is being proposed by ICANN here, I would view it as both duplicative and potentially destabilizing. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Sun Jun 14 08:15:19 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:15:19 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for ICG F2F #5 - June 18-19 In-Reply-To: <80BF4CCA-F98F-4D5B-A1AA-61AAB4BB670F@cooperw.in> References: <80BF4CCA-F98F-4D5B-A1AA-61AAB4BB670F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Alissa, The agenda seems reasonable. Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From jari.arkko at piuha.net Sun Jun 14 08:20:59 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 11:20:59 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: References: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in>, <276895353c81451b81fdcf288fe8f883@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>, <4410ABE9-68E8-4C29-8351-99091A199D60@verisign.com> Message-ID: <873017A0-3E89-4AF8-BFFC-141A4C4C45DD@piuha.net> Milton et al - I’m trying to understand the situation better. Are those bylaws changes specified in full detail as a result of the final submission of the CCWG work, or will some further work be required? Jari -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 842 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Jun 14 09:29:43 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:29:43 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for ICG F2F #5 - June 18-19 In-Reply-To: <80BF4CCA-F98F-4D5B-A1AA-61AAB4BB670F@cooperw.in> References: <80BF4CCA-F98F-4D5B-A1AA-61AAB4BB670F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Hi Alissa, I’ll have a chance to join the ICG at times, during my travels to Argentina. I hope I’ll be able to join you on Saturday from around 10am until sometime in the afternoon (from Auckland’s Airport hotel, in the middle of the night), and then on Saturday from 2pm to 4pm (from Santiago). The agenda suits me quite well for those times. Thanks, Paul. On 13 Jun 2015, at 5:52, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Revised agenda is below, reflecting our discussion on call #18. > > > === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === > > == June 18 == > > 9:00-9:15 > Agenda review > > 9:15-10:00 > CWG names proposal pre-assessment > > 10:00-10:30 > Planning for combined proposal assessment > - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment > - Assessment calendar > > 10:30-11:00 > Break > > 11:00-12:00 > Multi-step implementation > > 12:00-13:00 > Lunch > > 13:00-15:00 > Public comment period planning > - Executive summary for combined proposal > - Questions for the public > > 15:00-15:30 > Break > > 15:30-16:00 > Update on CCWG-Accountability work > > 16:00-17:00 > Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) > > > == June 19 == > > 9:00-9:15 > Agenda review > > 9:15-10:45 > Public outreach before and after public comment period > - Materials needed > - Audiences to target > - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries > > 10:45-11:15 > Break > > 11:15-12:30 > Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) > > 12:30-13:30 > Lunch > > 13:30-14:00 > Talking points for ICANN meeting week > > 14:00-15:00 > Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) > > 15:00-15:30 > Break > > 15:30-15:45 > Planning for June 25 working session > > 15:45-16:00 > Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning > > 16:00-17:00 > Wrap up > > > On Jun 9, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Patrik Fältström > wrote: > >> All, some additional data: >> >> Just so everyone understand the constraints set by interpreters: >> >> Breaks should be at least 15 min in the morning and 15 min in the >> afternoon, and 60 min for lunch. >> >> Each session between breaks is to be no longer than 2h30m. >> >> I think having "rules" like this is probably good for us as well :-) >> >> Patrik >> >> On 9 Jun 2015, at 21:12, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> A draft agenda for our F2F meeting next week is below. Please >>> comment. >>> >>> === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === >>> >>> == June 18 == >>> >>> 9:00-9:15 >>> Agenda review >>> >>> 9:15-10:00 >>> CWG names proposal pre-assessment >>> >>> 10:00-10:30 >>> Planning for combined proposal assessment >>> - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment >>> - Assessment calendar >>> >>> 10:30-11:00 >>> Break >>> >>> 11:00-11:30 >>> Coordination with CCWG-Accountability work >>> >>> 11:30-12:30 >>> Time frame discussion >>> - ICG timeline >>> - Response to NTIA letter >>> >>> 12:30-13:30 >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:30-15:00 >>> Public comment period planning >>> - Questions for the public >>> >>> 15:00-15:30 >>> Break >>> >>> 15:30-17:00 >>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>> >>> >>> == June 19 == >>> >>> 9:00-9:15 >>> Agenda review >>> >>> 9:15-10:30 >>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>> >>> 10:30-11:00 >>> Break >>> >>> 11:00-12:00 >>> Planning for public outreach before and after public comment period >>> - Materials needed >>> - Audiences to target >>> - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries >>> >>> 12:00-13:00 >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:00-15:00 >>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>> >>> 15:00-15:30 >>> Break >>> >>> 15:30-15:45 >>> Planning for June 25 working session >>> >>> 15:45-16:15 >>> Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning >>> >>> 16:15-17:00 >>> Wrap up >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From paf at frobbit.se Sun Jun 14 11:17:06 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:17:06 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for ICG F2F #5 - June 18-19 In-Reply-To: References: <80BF4CCA-F98F-4D5B-A1AA-61AAB4BB670F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <4F14589E-D82A-495C-A65B-7183135582DB@frobbit.se> Paul, There might be some misunderstanding because the meeting is June 18-19, Thursday-Friday. There is nothing on Saturday. Patrik On 14 Jun 2015, at 11:29, Paul Wilson wrote: > Hi Alissa, > > I’ll have a chance to join the ICG at times, during my travels to Argentina. > > I hope I’ll be able to join you on Saturday from around 10am until sometime in the afternoon (from Auckland’s Airport hotel, in the middle of the night), and then on Saturday from 2pm to 4pm (from Santiago). > > The agenda suits me quite well for those times. > > Thanks, > > Paul. > > > > > On 13 Jun 2015, at 5:52, Alissa Cooper wrote: > >> Revised agenda is below, reflecting our discussion on call #18. >> >> >> === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === >> >> == June 18 == >> >> 9:00-9:15 >> Agenda review >> >> 9:15-10:00 >> CWG names proposal pre-assessment >> >> 10:00-10:30 >> Planning for combined proposal assessment >> - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment >> - Assessment calendar >> >> 10:30-11:00 >> Break >> >> 11:00-12:00 >> Multi-step implementation >> >> 12:00-13:00 >> Lunch >> >> 13:00-15:00 >> Public comment period planning >> - Executive summary for combined proposal >> - Questions for the public >> >> 15:00-15:30 >> Break >> >> 15:30-16:00 >> Update on CCWG-Accountability work >> >> 16:00-17:00 >> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >> >> >> == June 19 == >> >> 9:00-9:15 >> Agenda review >> >> 9:15-10:45 >> Public outreach before and after public comment period >> - Materials needed >> - Audiences to target >> - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries >> >> 10:45-11:15 >> Break >> >> 11:15-12:30 >> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >> >> 12:30-13:30 >> Lunch >> >> 13:30-14:00 >> Talking points for ICANN meeting week >> >> 14:00-15:00 >> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >> >> 15:00-15:30 >> Break >> >> 15:30-15:45 >> Planning for June 25 working session >> >> 15:45-16:00 >> Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning >> >> 16:00-17:00 >> Wrap up >> >> >> On Jun 9, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: >> >>> All, some additional data: >>> >>> Just so everyone understand the constraints set by interpreters: >>> >>> Breaks should be at least 15 min in the morning and 15 min in the afternoon, and 60 min for lunch. >>> >>> Each session between breaks is to be no longer than 2h30m. >>> >>> I think having "rules" like this is probably good for us as well :-) >>> >>> Patrik >>> >>> On 9 Jun 2015, at 21:12, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>> >>>> A draft agenda for our F2F meeting next week is below. Please comment. >>>> >>>> === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === >>>> >>>> == June 18 == >>>> >>>> 9:00-9:15 >>>> Agenda review >>>> >>>> 9:15-10:00 >>>> CWG names proposal pre-assessment >>>> >>>> 10:00-10:30 >>>> Planning for combined proposal assessment >>>> - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment >>>> - Assessment calendar >>>> >>>> 10:30-11:00 >>>> Break >>>> >>>> 11:00-11:30 >>>> Coordination with CCWG-Accountability work >>>> >>>> 11:30-12:30 >>>> Time frame discussion >>>> - ICG timeline >>>> - Response to NTIA letter >>>> >>>> 12:30-13:30 >>>> Lunch >>>> >>>> 13:30-15:00 >>>> Public comment period planning >>>> - Questions for the public >>>> >>>> 15:00-15:30 >>>> Break >>>> >>>> 15:30-17:00 >>>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>>> >>>> >>>> == June 19 == >>>> >>>> 9:00-9:15 >>>> Agenda review >>>> >>>> 9:15-10:30 >>>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>>> >>>> 10:30-11:00 >>>> Break >>>> >>>> 11:00-12:00 >>>> Planning for public outreach before and after public comment period - Materials needed >>>> - Audiences to target >>>> - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries >>>> >>>> 12:00-13:00 >>>> Lunch >>>> >>>> 13:00-15:00 >>>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>>> >>>> 15:00-15:30 >>>> Break >>>> >>>> 15:30-15:45 >>>> Planning for June 25 working session >>>> >>>> 15:45-16:15 >>>> Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning >>>> >>>> 16:15-17:00 >>>> Wrap up >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Jun 14 11:34:17 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 19:34:17 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for ICG F2F #5 - June 18-19 In-Reply-To: <4F14589E-D82A-495C-A65B-7183135582DB@frobbit.se> References: <80BF4CCA-F98F-4D5B-A1AA-61AAB4BB670F@cooperw.in> <4F14589E-D82A-495C-A65B-7183135582DB@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <2F3FDB01-6C92-4A57-8B8D-6CBD97672E75@apnic.net> Thanks Patrick. Completely my error, too much multitasking, and timezone confusion! I'll indeed be available in the morning on day 1 (thu) and afternoon on day 2 (fri). Apologies! On 14 June 2015 19:17:06 GMT+08:00, "Patrik Fältström" wrote: >Paul, > >There might be some misunderstanding because the meeting is June 18-19, >Thursday-Friday. There is nothing on Saturday. > > Patrik > >On 14 Jun 2015, at 11:29, Paul Wilson wrote: > >> Hi Alissa, >> >> I’ll have a chance to join the ICG at times, during my travels to >Argentina. >> >> I hope I’ll be able to join you on Saturday from around 10am until >sometime in the afternoon (from Auckland’s Airport hotel, in the middle >of the night), and then on Saturday from 2pm to 4pm (from Santiago). >> >> The agenda suits me quite well for those times. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul. >> >> >> >> >> On 13 Jun 2015, at 5:52, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> Revised agenda is below, reflecting our discussion on call #18. >>> >>> >>> === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === >>> >>> == June 18 == >>> >>> 9:00-9:15 >>> Agenda review >>> >>> 9:15-10:00 >>> CWG names proposal pre-assessment >>> >>> 10:00-10:30 >>> Planning for combined proposal assessment >>> - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment >>> - Assessment calendar >>> >>> 10:30-11:00 >>> Break >>> >>> 11:00-12:00 >>> Multi-step implementation >>> >>> 12:00-13:00 >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:00-15:00 >>> Public comment period planning >>> - Executive summary for combined proposal >>> - Questions for the public >>> >>> 15:00-15:30 >>> Break >>> >>> 15:30-16:00 >>> Update on CCWG-Accountability work >>> >>> 16:00-17:00 >>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>> >>> >>> == June 19 == >>> >>> 9:00-9:15 >>> Agenda review >>> >>> 9:15-10:45 >>> Public outreach before and after public comment period >>> - Materials needed >>> - Audiences to target >>> - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries >>> >>> 10:45-11:15 >>> Break >>> >>> 11:15-12:30 >>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>> >>> 12:30-13:30 >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:30-14:00 >>> Talking points for ICANN meeting week >>> >>> 14:00-15:00 >>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>> >>> 15:00-15:30 >>> Break >>> >>> 15:30-15:45 >>> Planning for June 25 working session >>> >>> 15:45-16:00 >>> Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning >>> >>> 16:00-17:00 >>> Wrap up >>> >>> >>> On Jun 9, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Patrik Fältström >wrote: >>> >>>> All, some additional data: >>>> >>>> Just so everyone understand the constraints set by interpreters: >>>> >>>> Breaks should be at least 15 min in the morning and 15 min in the >afternoon, and 60 min for lunch. >>>> >>>> Each session between breaks is to be no longer than 2h30m. >>>> >>>> I think having "rules" like this is probably good for us as well >:-) >>>> >>>> Patrik >>>> >>>> On 9 Jun 2015, at 21:12, Alissa Cooper wrote: >>>> >>>>> A draft agenda for our F2F meeting next week is below. Please >comment. >>>>> >>>>> === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === >>>>> >>>>> == June 18 == >>>>> >>>>> 9:00-9:15 >>>>> Agenda review >>>>> >>>>> 9:15-10:00 >>>>> CWG names proposal pre-assessment >>>>> >>>>> 10:00-10:30 >>>>> Planning for combined proposal assessment >>>>> - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment >>>>> - Assessment calendar >>>>> >>>>> 10:30-11:00 >>>>> Break >>>>> >>>>> 11:00-11:30 >>>>> Coordination with CCWG-Accountability work >>>>> >>>>> 11:30-12:30 >>>>> Time frame discussion >>>>> - ICG timeline >>>>> - Response to NTIA letter >>>>> >>>>> 12:30-13:30 >>>>> Lunch >>>>> >>>>> 13:30-15:00 >>>>> Public comment period planning >>>>> - Questions for the public >>>>> >>>>> 15:00-15:30 >>>>> Break >>>>> >>>>> 15:30-17:00 >>>>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> == June 19 == >>>>> >>>>> 9:00-9:15 >>>>> Agenda review >>>>> >>>>> 9:15-10:30 >>>>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>>>> >>>>> 10:30-11:00 >>>>> Break >>>>> >>>>> 11:00-12:00 >>>>> Planning for public outreach before and after public comment >period - Materials needed >>>>> - Audiences to target >>>>> - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries >>>>> >>>>> 12:00-13:00 >>>>> Lunch >>>>> >>>>> 13:00-15:00 >>>>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>>>> >>>>> 15:00-15:30 >>>>> Break >>>>> >>>>> 15:30-15:45 >>>>> Planning for June 25 working session >>>>> >>>>> 15:45-16:15 >>>>> Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning >>>>> >>>>> 16:15-17:00 >>>>> Wrap up >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC >dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net >@apnicdg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -- Paul Wilson Director General, APNIC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mueller at syr.edu Sun Jun 14 13:53:24 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 13:53:24 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: <873017A0-3E89-4AF8-BFFC-141A4C4C45DD@piuha.net> References: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in>, <276895353c81451b81fdcf288fe8f883@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>, <4410ABE9-68E8-4C29-8351-99091A199D60@verisign.com> <873017A0-3E89-4AF8-BFFC-141A4C4C45DD@piuha.net> Message-ID: <498f36c1cf7945d6b58c89e5108f3150@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > > Milton et al - I'm trying to understand the situation better. Are those bylaws > changes specified in full detail as a result of the final submission of the > CCWG work, or will some further work be required? > > Jari Good question. If the CCWG and CWG will draft specific language that the ICANN board only has to adopt, then no further work will be required. (I think - and hope - that that is the base for many things, such as the revised scope and mission statements.) If the CCWG and CWG issue instructions that indicate less specifically what ICANN needs to do, then some further work will be required. I can see how, if ICANN is required to translate the instructions of the CCWG/CWG into specific bylaw language, that the community would want a chance to comment on how well it did that. So maybe the process as proposed in Steve's letter is not so bad. Based on long experience in this environment, however, I would caution that the community would have to pay very careful attention to the gap between 'policy' as established by the CCWG/CWG, and 'implementation' by ICANN. Just as there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, sometimes the policies established by the community become unrecognizable during the implementation process; the policy can even be undermined. --MM From jari.arkko at piuha.net Sun Jun 14 14:12:04 2015 From: jari.arkko at piuha.net (Jari Arkko) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:12:04 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: <498f36c1cf7945d6b58c89e5108f3150@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in> <276895353c81451b81fdcf288fe8f883@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <4410ABE9-68E8-4C29-8351-99091A199D60@verisign.com> <873017A0-3E89-4AF8-BFFC-141A4C4C45DD@piuha.net> <498f36c1cf7945d6b58c89e5108f3150@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <500FCDD7-D85E-4BEA-B70A-AF5535F55768@piuha.net> Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense. Jari From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sun Jun 14 15:02:53 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:02:53 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: <498f36c1cf7945d6b58c89e5108f3150@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in> <276895353c81451b81fdcf288fe8f883@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <4410ABE9-68E8-4C29-8351-99091A199D60@verisign.com> <873017A0-3E89-4AF8-BFFC-141A4C4C45DD@piuha.net> <498f36c1cf7945d6b58c89e5108f3150@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <58B35F4A-1D9F-41D7-9399-03971C9D2193@gmail.com> Milton Reply to your questions, concerns have already been addressed and are being refined or complemented by CCWG Output as stands today and being reviewed by WPs 1 and 2 of CCWG In detailed fashion Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 14 Jun 2015, at 15:53, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Milton et al - I'm trying to understand the situation better. Are those bylaws >> changes specified in full detail as a result of the final submission of the >> CCWG work, or will some further work be required? >> >> Jari > > Good question. > > If the CCWG and CWG will draft specific language that the ICANN board only has to adopt, then no further work will be required. (I think - and hope - that that is the base for many things, such as the revised scope and mission statements.) > > If the CCWG and CWG issue instructions that indicate less specifically what ICANN needs to do, then some further work will be required. I can see how, if ICANN is required to translate the instructions of the CCWG/CWG into specific bylaw language, that the community would want a chance to comment on how well it did that. So maybe the process as proposed in Steve's letter is not so bad. > > Based on long experience in this environment, however, I would caution that the community would have to pay very careful attention to the gap between 'policy' as established by the CCWG/CWG, and 'implementation' by ICANN. Just as there is many a slip between the cup and the lip, sometimes the policies established by the community become unrecognizable during the implementation process; the policy can even be undermined. > > --MM > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sun Jun 14 21:13:11 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2015 17:13:11 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Time frame inquiry In-Reply-To: <4410ABE9-68E8-4C29-8351-99091A199D60@verisign.com> References: <002FDA3C-D498-4D07-95BD-C48342AC4374@cooperw.in>, <276895353c81451b81fdcf288fe8f883@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <4410ABE9-68E8-4C29-8351-99091A199D60@verisign.com> Message-ID: <557DEE67.80802@oracle.com> Colleagues: I agree focus should be on the time needed to implement the changes, but don't want to overstate our position either. While I don't believe that ICANN can change our proposal, I also don't think we can compel them to accept it. We should never arrive at this point as they should have provided input to us and the communities along the way to avoid a last minute impasse. Perhaps we can phrase it as time needed for implementation of the proposal after the Bard has finalized its review? Joe On 6/13/2015 12:06 PM, Drazek, Keith wrote: > I share Milton's concerns. > > Regards, > Keith Drazek > > On Jun 13, 2015, at 10:13 AM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > >> With regards to the path leading to implementation, the Board >> believes that it will be necessary for ICANN to follow its normal >> processes for dealing with reviews. This will include the normal >> process for bylaws changes, where the proposed new text will be >> published for public comment before Board approval, and the >> normal process of taking public comment for important >> implementation options and details. >> >> MM: This seems a bit strange to me. As I understand it, we are >> talking about bylaw changes required to implement the finalized >> ICG proposal that has been approved by the NTIA. For ICANN to >> follow its “normal process for dealing with reviews” implies that >> ICANN itself is in control of _/making/_ the changes rather than >> _/implementing/_ the changes required by the proposal. Publishing >> the proposed text for public comment seems duplicative given that >> ICG will have already gone through a public comment process. It >> also would seem to provide an avenue for changing the proposal in >> response to comments made in its own process. >> >> So if I understand what is being proposed by ICANN here, I would >> view it as both duplicative and potentially destabilizing. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Mon Jun 15 09:39:57 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:39:57 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F In-Reply-To: <1378184.414.1434060514346.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <1378184.414.1434060514346.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: My flight is scheduled to land in BA at 07:05 am .. Hope to reach the meeting on time .. Other than that will be present at the meeting both days .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 12:09 AM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F Thanks Alissa. I will be actively participating on - 18 June from around 10:00, because my flight from Paris is expected to land in Buenos Aires at 08:05. - 19 June: no hindrance. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Jeudi 11 Juin 2015 17:31:57 Objet: [Internal-cg] Attendance at F2F I know some folks have conflicts with one or both of the F2F meeting days next week. It would be helpful to know who to expect in the room and remotely. If you will not be attending one or both of the F2F days in person, please reply to this note and indicate which day(s) you will not be there and whether you will participate remotely. Thanks, Alissa _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Mon Jun 15 09:49:28 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:49:28 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure In-Reply-To: <5579E917.6040707@ripe.net> References: <55797E96.2020508@ripe.net> <950a64ec1347461da0e5f41485b916c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5579E917.6040707@ripe.net> Message-ID: I think the main idea behind noting different audience, was not to produce different versions of the proposal .. On the contrary, the intention was to make sure things needed ONLY for the public comment period (not for NTIA), be separated and possibly posted as part of the announcement on the ICG website .. But I stand to be corrected .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:01 PM To: Milton L Mueller; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure On 11.06.15 19:29 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hmmm, I missed what looks to have been an exciting meeting, so discount the following comments if they are uninformed or misinterpreting based on lack of context, but I am reacting only to Daniel K's statement: > >> I oppose >> >> - producing various versions for different audiences, >> - including explanatory material not intended for NTIA, and >> - copying or paraphrasing any existing documents. > > Daniel seems to be operating from the assumption that it is only the NTIA that will read and react to our proposal. Is he forgetting the fact that before we can send it to the NTIA we are required to have a public comment period? This proposal may well require explanations or summaries that are appropriate for a general public audience but would not be needed for the NTIA. Rest assured that I am not operating from that assumption. See my message: > As I said on the call: we can have explanatory material such as > summaries, info-graphics or even cartoons produced that may help to > socialise our deliverable and gain acceptance of it. But that is not > our main job. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Mon Jun 15 11:14:55 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:14:55 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure In-Reply-To: References: <55797E96.2020508@ripe.net><950a64ec1347461da0e5f41485b916c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><5579E917.6040707@ripe.net> Message-ID: <852F4CD51BAD4860A102998F72392C86@WUKPC> Manal, thanks! That's what I have in mind, too. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 11:49 AM To: Daniel Karrenberg ; Milton L Mueller ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure I think the main idea behind noting different audience, was not to produce different versions of the proposal .. On the contrary, the intention was to make sure things needed ONLY for the public comment period (not for NTIA), be separated and possibly posted as part of the announcement on the ICG website .. But I stand to be corrected .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:01 PM To: Milton L Mueller; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure On 11.06.15 19:29 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hmmm, I missed what looks to have been an exciting meeting, so discount > the following comments if they are uninformed or misinterpreting based on > lack of context, but I am reacting only to Daniel K's statement: > >> I oppose >> >> - producing various versions for different audiences, >> - including explanatory material not intended for NTIA, and >> - copying or paraphrasing any existing documents. > > Daniel seems to be operating from the assumption that it is only the NTIA > that will read and react to our proposal. Is he forgetting the fact that > before we can send it to the NTIA we are required to have a public comment > period? This proposal may well require explanations or summaries that are > appropriate for a general public audience but would not be needed for the > NTIA. Rest assured that I am not operating from that assumption. See my message: > As I said on the call: we can have explanatory material such as > summaries, info-graphics or even cartoons produced that may help to > socialise our deliverable and gain acceptance of it. But that is not > our main job. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Jun 15 12:46:28 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:46:28 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure In-Reply-To: References: <55797E96.2020508@ripe.net> <950a64ec1347461da0e5f41485b916c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5579E917.6040707@ripe.net> Message-ID: <557EC924.5020105@ripe.net> In that case it appears that we are in violent agreement. The mailing list discussion and some things that were said during the most recent call increased my worry about loosing focus. Daniel On 15.06.15 11:49 , Manal Ismail wrote: > I think the main idea behind noting different audience, was not to produce different versions of the proposal .. > On the contrary, the intention was to make sure things needed ONLY for the public comment period (not for NTIA), be separated and possibly posted as part of the announcement on the ICG website .. > But I stand to be corrected .. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:01 PM > To: Milton L Mueller; IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure > > > > On 11.06.15 19:29 , Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Hmmm, I missed what looks to have been an exciting meeting, so discount the following comments if they are uninformed or misinterpreting based on lack of context, but I am reacting only to Daniel K's statement: >> >>> I oppose >>> >>> - producing various versions for different audiences, >>> - including explanatory material not intended for NTIA, and >>> - copying or paraphrasing any existing documents. >> >> Daniel seems to be operating from the assumption that it is only the NTIA that will read and react to our proposal. Is he forgetting the fact that before we can send it to the NTIA we are required to have a public comment period? This proposal may well require explanations or summaries that are appropriate for a general public audience but would not be needed for the NTIA. > > > Rest assured that I am not operating from that assumption. See my message: > >> As I said on the call: we can have explanatory material such as >> summaries, info-graphics or even cartoons produced that may help to >> socialise our deliverable and gain acceptance of it. But that is not >> our main job. > > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > From manal at tra.gov.eg Mon Jun 15 12:52:48 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:52:48 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure In-Reply-To: <557EC924.5020105@ripe.net> References: <55797E96.2020508@ripe.net> <950a64ec1347461da0e5f41485b916c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <5579E917.6040707@ripe.net> <557EC924.5020105@ripe.net> Message-ID: <81407b4b7e304f88bc9ece4a0c360afe@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Fair enough .. That's why I tried to reiterate how the discussion started .. Yes, "we are in violent agreement" :), hope with everyone else too :) !! Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg [mailto:daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 2:46 PM To: Manal Ismail; Milton L Mueller; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure In that case it appears that we are in violent agreement. The mailing list discussion and some things that were said during the most recent call increased my worry about loosing focus. Daniel On 15.06.15 11:49 , Manal Ismail wrote: > I think the main idea behind noting different audience, was not to produce different versions of the proposal .. > On the contrary, the intention was to make sure things needed ONLY for the public comment period (not for NTIA), be separated and possibly posted as part of the announcement on the ICG website .. > But I stand to be corrected .. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Daniel Karrenberg > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:01 PM > To: Milton L Mueller; IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure > > > > On 11.06.15 19:29 , Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Hmmm, I missed what looks to have been an exciting meeting, so discount the following comments if they are uninformed or misinterpreting based on lack of context, but I am reacting only to Daniel K's statement: >> >>> I oppose >>> >>> - producing various versions for different audiences, >>> - including explanatory material not intended for NTIA, and >>> - copying or paraphrasing any existing documents. >> >> Daniel seems to be operating from the assumption that it is only the NTIA that will read and react to our proposal. Is he forgetting the fact that before we can send it to the NTIA we are required to have a public comment period? This proposal may well require explanations or summaries that are appropriate for a general public audience but would not be needed for the NTIA. > > > Rest assured that I am not operating from that assumption. See my message: > >> As I said on the call: we can have explanatory material such as >> summaries, info-graphics or even cartoons produced that may help to >> socialise our deliverable and gain acceptance of it. But that is not >> our main job. > > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > From manal at tra.gov.eg Mon Jun 15 12:54:26 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 12:54:26 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure In-Reply-To: <852F4CD51BAD4860A102998F72392C86@WUKPC> References: <55797E96.2020508@ripe.net><950a64ec1347461da0e5f41485b916c3@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu><5579E917.6040707@ripe.net> <852F4CD51BAD4860A102998F72392C86@WUKPC> Message-ID: <8205dbe6bb1a4698b66e6aa2eaebad43@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Great !! Thanks Wolf-Ulrich for the confirmation .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 1:15 PM To: Manal Ismail; Daniel Karrenberg; Milton L Mueller; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure Manal, thanks! That's what I have in mind, too. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Manal Ismail Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 11:49 AM To: Daniel Karrenberg ; Milton L Mueller ; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure I think the main idea behind noting different audience, was not to produce different versions of the proposal .. On the contrary, the intention was to make sure things needed ONLY for the public comment period (not for NTIA), be separated and possibly posted as part of the announcement on the ICG website .. But I stand to be corrected .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Karrenberg Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:01 PM To: Milton L Mueller; IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Document Content and Structure On 11.06.15 19:29 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > Hmmm, I missed what looks to have been an exciting meeting, so discount > the following comments if they are uninformed or misinterpreting based on > lack of context, but I am reacting only to Daniel K's statement: > >> I oppose >> >> - producing various versions for different audiences, >> - including explanatory material not intended for NTIA, and >> - copying or paraphrasing any existing documents. > > Daniel seems to be operating from the assumption that it is only the NTIA > that will read and react to our proposal. Is he forgetting the fact that > before we can send it to the NTIA we are required to have a public comment > period? This proposal may well require explanations or summaries that are > appropriate for a general public audience but would not be needed for the > NTIA. Rest assured that I am not operating from that assumption. See my message: > As I said on the call: we can have explanatory material such as > summaries, info-graphics or even cartoons produced that may help to > socialise our deliverable and gain acceptance of it. But that is not > our main job. Daniel _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Jun 16 00:37:59 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:37:59 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] Of Interest: Volume 6: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions In-Reply-To: <015701d0a568$171442d0$453cc870$@icgsec.asia> References: <015701d0a568$171442d0$453cc870$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <91700B07-39F6-4A3A-8872-C9228D120E9A@cooperw.in> FYI, Samantha Dickinson will be on hand in Buenos Aires and will be tweeting some of our ICG sessions, in addition to continuing to provide these updates on a regular basis going forward. The ICANN communications staff will also be recording video and posting video of folks involved in the transition talking about the work. Alissa On Jun 12, 2015, at 4:32 PM, Jennifer Chung wrote: > Dear All, > > Volume 6: An Update on IANA Stewardship Discussions has been posted and is available here: > https://www.icann.org/news/blog/volume-6-an-update-on-iana-stewardship-discussions > > Best Regards, > > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Tue Jun 16 09:10:39 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 05:10:39 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] Minutes of the 10 June 2015 teleconference (ICG Call 18) Message-ID: <016101d0a814$517ad0c0$f4707240$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The minutes of the 10 June teleconference (ICG Call #18) are attached and also available on Dropbox here: http://bit.ly/1FZa0vP Safe travels and see you soon in Buenos Aires! Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: minutes-teleconference-10-june-2015-draft.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 54466 bytes Desc: not available URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Jun 17 18:11:06 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:11:06 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft agenda for ICG F2F #5 - June 18-19 In-Reply-To: <80BF4CCA-F98F-4D5B-A1AA-61AAB4BB670F@cooperw.in> References: <80BF4CCA-F98F-4D5B-A1AA-61AAB4BB670F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <49E7ED1E-CDA8-4E62-8D00-A64A8707E3B9@cooperw.in> I accidentally dropped the timeline discussion when revising the agenda. It has been added back to day 1, with some rearranging. === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === == June 18 == 9:00-9:15 Agenda review 9:15-10:00 CWG names proposal pre-assessment 10:00-10:30 Planning for combined proposal assessment - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment - Assessment calendar 10:30-11:00 Break 11:00-12:00 Multi-step implementation 12:00-13:00 Lunch 13:00-14:45 Public comment period planning - Executive summary for combined proposal - Questions for the public 14:45-15:15 Break 15:15-15:45 Update on CCWG-Accountability work 15:45-16:45 Time frame discussion - ICG timeline - Response to NTIA letter 16:45-17:00 Wrap up == June 19 == 9:00-9:15 Agenda review 9:15-10:45 Public outreach before and after public comment period - Materials needed - Audiences to target - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries 10:45-11:15 Break 11:15-12:30 Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) 12:30-13:30 Lunch 13:30-14:00 Talking points for ICANN meeting week 14:00-15:00 Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) 15:00-15:30 Break 15:30-15:45 Planning for June 25 working session 15:45-16:00 Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning 16:00-17:00 Wrap up On Jun 12, 2015, at 4:52 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Revised agenda is below, reflecting our discussion on call #18. > > > === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === > > == June 18 == > > 9:00-9:15 > Agenda review > > 9:15-10:00 > CWG names proposal pre-assessment > > 10:00-10:30 > Planning for combined proposal assessment > - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment > - Assessment calendar > > 10:30-11:00 > Break > > 11:00-12:00 > Multi-step implementation > > 12:00-13:00 > Lunch > > 13:00-15:00 > Public comment period planning > - Executive summary for combined proposal > - Questions for the public > > 15:00-15:30 > Break > > 15:30-16:00 > Update on CCWG-Accountability work > > 16:00-17:00 > Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) > > > == June 19 == > > 9:00-9:15 > Agenda review > > 9:15-10:45 > Public outreach before and after public comment period > - Materials needed > - Audiences to target > - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries > > 10:45-11:15 > Break > > 11:15-12:30 > Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) > > 12:30-13:30 > Lunch > > 13:30-14:00 > Talking points for ICANN meeting week > > 14:00-15:00 > Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) > > 15:00-15:30 > Break > > 15:30-15:45 > Planning for June 25 working session > > 15:45-16:00 > Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning > > 16:00-17:00 > Wrap up > > > On Jun 9, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> All, some additional data: >> >> Just so everyone understand the constraints set by interpreters: >> >> Breaks should be at least 15 min in the morning and 15 min in the afternoon, and 60 min for lunch. >> >> Each session between breaks is to be no longer than 2h30m. >> >> I think having "rules" like this is probably good for us as well :-) >> >> Patrik >> >> On 9 Jun 2015, at 21:12, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> >>> A draft agenda for our F2F meeting next week is below. Please comment. >>> >>> === ICG F2F Mtg #5 Agenda === >>> >>> == June 18 == >>> >>> 9:00-9:15 >>> Agenda review >>> >>> 9:15-10:00 >>> CWG names proposal pre-assessment >>> >>> 10:00-10:30 >>> Planning for combined proposal assessment >>> - Solicitation of volunteers to conduct assessment >>> - Assessment calendar >>> >>> 10:30-11:00 >>> Break >>> >>> 11:00-11:30 >>> Coordination with CCWG-Accountability work >>> >>> 11:30-12:30 >>> Time frame discussion >>> - ICG timeline >>> - Response to NTIA letter >>> >>> 12:30-13:30 >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:30-15:00 >>> Public comment period planning >>> - Questions for the public >>> >>> 15:00-15:30 >>> Break >>> >>> 15:30-17:00 >>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>> >>> >>> == June 19 == >>> >>> 9:00-9:15 >>> Agenda review >>> >>> 9:15-10:30 >>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>> >>> 10:30-11:00 >>> Break >>> >>> 11:00-12:00 >>> Planning for public outreach before and after public comment period - Materials needed >>> - Audiences to target >>> - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries >>> >>> 12:00-13:00 >>> Lunch >>> >>> 13:00-15:00 >>> Reserved for overflow from earlier topic(s) >>> >>> 15:00-15:30 >>> Break >>> >>> 15:30-15:45 >>> Planning for June 25 working session >>> >>> 15:45-16:15 >>> Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning >>> >>> 16:15-17:00 >>> Wrap up >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Jun 17 18:14:35 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:14:35 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: Number Community Response regarding IANA transition implementation timing References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Paul Wilson > Subject: Number Community Response regarding IANA transition implementation timing > Date: June 17, 2015 at 8:05:52 AM GMT-3 > To: Alissa Cooper , Patrik Fältström , Mohamed El Bashir > Cc: Izumi Okutani , Alan Barrett > > Dear Alissa and all, > > Please find attached a joint response from the CRISP Team and NRO EC regarding IANA transition implementation timing. > > All the best > > Paul. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NRO-CRISP-Implementation-Response.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 61069 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Jun 17 18:21:04 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:21:04 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal executive summary and public comment material Message-ID: <49AFD10A-2EC6-4AE7-9E11-AC575C9DB85F@cooperw.in> Hi all, I’ve put together a skeleton of an executive summary for the combined transition proposal. I put it into the combined proposal document so folks can see it in context. Essentially all of the words in the executive summary are directly copied from existing documents (NTIA announcement, ICANN site about the creation of the ICG, our proposal finalization process), with some minor modifications for style. Anything in angle brackets (< >) still needs to be filled in. The summaries of the individual proposal components could be filled in now. The other pieces can’t be filled in until we do our assessment of the proposal. This has been shared with the small drafting team but I wanted to get it out to the whole group since we will discuss it at least a bit tomorrow. I’ve also started putting together an outline of the materials we may need to have on our web site when we launch the public comment process on the combined proposal. I’ve included that as well since we’ve had the recent discussion on the mailing list and the last call about some of this content. The attached version reflects some comments from the drafting team (Milton in particular). In general I’ve tried to follow the approach Daniel recommended: keep the executive summary in the proposal document itself somewhat brief, and put the extra background material that public commenters may need on the web site. I didn’t actually draft the background section yet though — volunteer(s) to draft that would be great. The web site document also contains an initial list of questions to the public, drawn from our proposal assessment process and the NTIA criteria. We’ll have time for discussion of the direction of these at the F2F. Secretariat: please add these documents to the Dropbox. Alissa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: combined-proposal-v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 335360 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: public-comment-web-page-v1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 26035 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Jun 17 20:18:10 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 17:18:10 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] General information: ICG sessions in Buenos Aires Message-ID: <005201d0a93a$bc8ed920$35ac8b60$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Welcome to Buenos Aires! General Information: Directions to venue: For the ICG members staying at the Plaza Hotel - google map of how to get to the venue: http://bit.ly/1d1y2Oz (approx. 8 mins walking) Venue map: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/maps Venue Wi-Fi Access: SSID: ICANN53-WPA, Password: Buenosaires53 Registration for ICANN 53 has not opened yet. Session Information: Thursday 18 June - ICG Meeting 5, Day 1 Time: 09:00-17:00 ART / 12:00-20:00 UTC (Time conversion here: http://bit.ly/1SU4gwy) Location: San Telmo Remote participation: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-santelmo Languages: All details will be available on the session page here: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-icg Agenda: Latest version attached Friday 19 June - ICG Meeting 5, Day 2 Time: 09:00-17:00 ART / 12:00-20:00 UTC (Time conversion here: http://bit.ly/1dcNk3v) Location: San Telmo Remote participation: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-santelmo Languages: All details will be available on the session page here: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg Agenda: Latest version attached Thursday 25 June - ICG wrap-up session Time: 09:00-13:00 ART / 12:00-16:00 UTC (Time conversion here: http://bit.ly/1ePAR6R) Location: Retiro C Remote participation: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-retiroc Languages: This session will not have live stream interpretation and will only be in English. Agenda: To be determined Remote Participation: After reassessing needs, we will be using the usual ICG phone bridge for ICG members participating remotely to allow interventions by voice. ICG Members who have indicated to the Secretariat that they will participate remotely for one or more sessions will receive additional details under separate cover. As always, please feel free to contact me or any member of the Secretariat team should you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG Meeting 5 agenda-draft.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 85975 bytes Desc: not available URL: From liman at netnod.se Wed Jun 17 21:32:15 2015 From: liman at netnod.se (Lars-Johan Liman) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 23:32:15 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Excuses for BA meeting. Message-ID: <227fr210o0.fsf@hiptop.liman.net> All, Please accept my excuses for not being able to join you during the ICG meeting in Buenos Aires. I have a previous committment that I agreed to a very long time ago, which delays my departure to Buenos Aires until Saturday. :-( With regrets, /Lars-Johan Liman #---------------------------------------------------------------------- # Lars-Johan Liman, M.Sc. ! E-mail: liman at netnod.se # Senior Systems Specialist ! Tel: +46 8 - 562 860 12 # Netnod Internet Exchange, Stockholm ! http://www.netnod.se/ #---------------------------------------------------------------------- From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Jun 17 23:45:37 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 20:45:37 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal executive summary and public comment material In-Reply-To: <49AFD10A-2EC6-4AE7-9E11-AC575C9DB85F@cooperw.in> References: <49AFD10A-2EC6-4AE7-9E11-AC575C9DB85F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <00a901d0a957$b7e8ca80$27ba5f80$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Both documents are now on Dropbox and are available here: Combined Transition Proposal v1: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lld0kvq0lwd7gsa/combined-proposal-v1.doc?dl=0 Public Comment web page material: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xkio4u6q5bvwg3x/public-comment-web-page-v1.docx?dl =0 Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 3:21 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal executive summary and public comment material Hi all, I've put together a skeleton of an executive summary for the combined transition proposal. I put it into the combined proposal document so folks can see it in context. Essentially all of the words in the executive summary are directly copied from existing documents (NTIA announcement, ICANN site about the creation of the ICG, our proposal finalization process), with some minor modifications for style. Anything in angle brackets (< >) still needs to be filled in. The summaries of the individual proposal components could be filled in now. The other pieces can't be filled in until we do our assessment of the proposal. This has been shared with the small drafting team but I wanted to get it out to the whole group since we will discuss it at least a bit tomorrow. I've also started putting together an outline of the materials we may need to have on our web site when we launch the public comment process on the combined proposal. I've included that as well since we've had the recent discussion on the mailing list and the last call about some of this content. The attached version reflects some comments from the drafting team (Milton in particular). In general I've tried to follow the approach Daniel recommended: keep the executive summary in the proposal document itself somewhat brief, and put the extra background material that public commenters may need on the web site. I didn't actually draft the background section yet though - volunteer(s) to draft that would be great. The web site document also contains an initial list of questions to the public, drawn from our proposal assessment process and the NTIA criteria. We'll have time for discussion of the direction of these at the F2F. Secretariat: please add these documents to the Dropbox. Alissa From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Jun 18 06:40:07 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:40:07 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Regarding a staged transition approach Message-ID: <291EA784-47E7-49BE-9C75-13E92506C553@apnic.net> Dear IGC, Here is a set of brief discussion points in support of a staged approach to the IANA stewardship transition, as a contribution to today’s IGC meeting. 1. The IANA stewardship transition planning process is built on an assumption by the ICG that there are 3 distinct sets of IANA services, and 3 identified “communities” for those Names, Numbers and Protocol services. 2. The 3 IANA service sets are considered independent and disjoint enough that the ICG was able to call for separate transition proposals from the 3 respective communities. 3. Notably, there was no violent or substantial objection to this approach, and the 3 expected transition plans have now been successfully produced by the respective communities, after exhaustive development processes. 4. Given the recognised separability of these 3 sets of IANA services, the question arises as to whether the transition plans for each of those sets need to be implemented at the same time; or whether they can instead be sequenced, as steps within a single coherent transition plan produced by the ICG. 5. A staged transition would allow the transition of Protocols and Numbers services on the original planned transition date of 30 September 2015, with the necessary renewal of the IANA contract from that date. It would then allow the Names services to be transitioned later, when its prerequisites have been met. 6. This approach will meet the expectations of the Protocols and Numbers communities, whose transition plans will be ready to be implemented on 30 September, are who will otherwise be asked to wait unnecessarily for the Names plan to be ready for implementation at a later date. 7. A staged transition will demonstrate concrete progress in the transition process, and the concrete commitment of all parties to the transition. 8. A failure to implement any transition steps on 30 September may be otherwise taken (or characterised) as a failure of the community process or of the US Government’s commitment to the IANA stewardship transition. 9. To allow the transition of Protocols and Numbers on 30 September would provide an opportunity from that time to demonstrate and validate the success of those transitions, giving more confidence in the subsequent transition of the Names services. 10. At this time, having received 3 complete IANA transition proposals, it is the ICG’s responsibility to identify and reconcile any inconsistencies between the 3 proposals, and produce a single complete transition plan. It is perfectly feasible and not difficult for the ICG to also consider the implementation timing for the 3 components of the transition, and to specify a timed, staged approach within a single transition plan. I am unable to identify any disadvantages to this approach. Thanks, Paul Wilson. From apb at cequrux.com Thu Jun 18 10:56:18 2015 From: apb at cequrux.com (Alan Barrett) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:56:18 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Regarding a staged transition approach In-Reply-To: <291EA784-47E7-49BE-9C75-13E92506C553@apnic.net> References: <291EA784-47E7-49BE-9C75-13E92506C553@apnic.net> Message-ID: <20150618105617.GB22755@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Paul Wilson wrote: > Here is a set of brief discussion points in support of a staged > approach to the IANA stewardship transition, as a contribution > to today’s IGC meeting. Thank you, Paul. I support a phased approach to implementation. I have heard objections that the ICG should not produce an incomplete proposal, but I point out that the phased implementation proposal would be complete. The combined proposal would be finalised after all three operating communities had finalised their parts of the proposal, and it would include a transition for all three operating communities. --apb (Alan Barrett) From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Jun 18 11:20:51 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:20:51 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Regarding a staged transition approach In-Reply-To: <20150618105617.GB22755@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> References: <291EA784-47E7-49BE-9C75-13E92506C553@apnic.net>, <20150618105617.GB22755@apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za> Message-ID: Thanks Paul and Alan, I refer everyone to NTIA's most recent blog post of June 16 with guidance on this issue. Here's the link and relevant text: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/stakeholder-proposals-come-together-icann-meeting-argentina At this key juncture, it is timely to not only take stock of all the work that has occurred, but also what lies ahead. I recognize that some stakeholder groups have finalized their proposals and are anxious to move forward. But NTIA will only review a comprehensive plan that includes all elements, and we must let the multistakeholder process run its full course. In that same spirit, I urge all global stakeholders – community members, ICANN Board members, and ICANN staff – to work together constructively to complete this final stage of the transition. The commitment by the global community to develop a consensus proposal that meets NTIA’s conditions and improves ICANN’s accountability is a testament to the power of the multistakeholder model. And In addition to the ICG transition proposal, the final submission to NTIA must include a plan to enhance ICANN’s accountability. And All of these questions require thoughtful consideration prior to the community’s completion of the transition plan. Similar to the ICG, the Working Group on Accountability will need to build a public record and thoroughly document how the NTIA criteria have been met and will be maintained in the future. I am interested in learning more about phased implementation, as that would presumably follow from a complete and consolidated proposal as required by NTIA. Thanks and regards, Keith Drazek On Jun 18, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Alan Barrett > wrote: On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Paul Wilson wrote: Here is a set of brief discussion points in support of a staged approach to the IANA stewardship transition, as a contribution to today’s IGC meeting. Thank you, Paul. I support a phased approach to implementation. I have heard objections that the ICG should not produce an incomplete proposal, but I point out that the phased implementation proposal would be complete. The combined proposal would be finalised after all three operating communities had finalised their parts of the proposal, and it would include a transition for all three operating communities. --apb (Alan Barrett) _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Jun 18 12:17:55 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:17:55 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Patrik's slides for CWG names pre-assessment Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Presentation1-paf-icg.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 64100 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 18 13:16:30 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:16:30 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG Chairs message about the IANA-related IPR Message-ID: <8ca29128b844497b93ad1e732d81061e@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> FYI: The messages below from the CWG-names co-chairs makes it clear that they consider it an "unresolved issue" in the CWG proposal --MM From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lise Fuhr Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:15 AM To: jrobinson at afilias.info; 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'manning'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 Having read the thread, I fully support the approach that Jonathan suggests. Best, Lise Fra: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] På vegne af Jonathan Robinson Sendt: 11. juni 2015 00:26 Til: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'manning'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org Emne: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 We have an overarching objective to get the proposal to the SO & ACs in good time ahead of the BA meeting. Let's remain committed to that. Like Chuck, I would like to think there is a resolution here through collaborative work and that this should not stop us sending the proposal to the Chartering Organisations, with acknowledgement that this is an issue to resolve. I haven't had the opportunity to discuss this with Lise, but personally, I would be comfortable flagging this in a covering note as an issue requiring further work to resolve, ideally before submission to the ICG. This is, in essence, the 5th option suggested by Chuck, seconded by Greg and further supported by Andrew. It may be that, given due consideration, PTI is agreeable as an appropriate legal entity to hold the mark and/or other relevant IP. At this stage, I have neither a legally informed view nor a personal position. However, a key point which we should all be cognisant of (and could emphasise in a covering note), is that the language that has kicked this off this thread is derived from the draft Term Sheet (page 128). This has not been fully worked through by the CWG and we have expressly left it to implementation. In this context, please note that our preamble to the Term Sheet states: What follows below is an initial draft proposed term sheet that could be the precursor to the ICANN-PTI contract. This is based on a legal memorandum prepared by legal counsel to the CWG-Stewardship on May 18, 2015. To the extent this term sheet is inconsistent with the current proposal, the current proposal governs. The term sheet would will be subject of negotiation between PTI and ICANN (with PTI having independent legal advice). Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: 10 June 2015 21:11 To: manning; Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 I may be naïve and sometimes am but I would like to think that this could be resolved in collaboration with one another before a proposal is submitted to the ICG. Also, I really don't think that the fact that this issue is not resolved should not be a showstopper for SO/AC approval. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of manning Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 3:51 PM To: Greg Shatan Cc: cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] drift in v5 I am not going to weigh in on the merits of either point of view. I simply suggest that the text in v5 is directly contrary to a published position by the CRISP team (the numbers community). Such a conflict may be resolved either before or after the CWG final submission. I would posit that the longer it remains unresolved, the longer it will take to execute a transition. manning bmanning at karoshi.com PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 10June2015Wednesday, at 12:06, Greg Shatan > wrote: > ICANN is an appropriate owner of the IANA trademarks. PTI is also an appropriate owner of the IANA trademarks. The IETF Trust does not appear to be an appropriate owner of the IANA trademarks. > > A trademark is an indicator of source or origin. The owner of a trademark should be the ultimate source of the goods and services offered under that trademark. In the most straightforward case, the trademark owner offers those goods and services themselves or through a subsidiary. The trademark owner can license the mark to third parties to offer goods and services under the mark; but, consistent with their status as the ultimate source, the trademark owner is required by law to exercise continuing quality controls over the goods and services offered by the licensee and the use of the trademark by the licensee. A trademark owner cannot merely "hold the asset" as CRISP proposed. Ownership of a trademark fundamentally involves being the "source or origin" of the goods and services and fulfilling the "quality control" oversight role, among other things. > > Quality control generally involves approvals by the licensor of any potential new products or services, and approvals of any changes in products or services (what they are, how they are offered, methods and processes, etc.), as well as ongoing monitoring of quality. The benchmark typically is that licensee's level of quality should be at least as high as the goods and services offered by the licensor (i.e., the owner of the mark and the ultimate source/origin of the goods/services). This is all set forth in a trademark license between the licensee ans licensor. If a trademark license has no quality control provisions, or the quality control provisions are not adequate or not adequately exercised, the license may be deemed a "naked license," exposing the trademark to the risk of abandonment (loss of validity as a trademark, and loss of the right to claim ownership and usage rights of the mark). When a licensee uses a trademark, all goodwill (brand reputation) goes to the owner, not the licensee. The owner is the holder of that goodwill. > > I don't see how the IETF Trust makes legal sense as the owner of the IANA Trademarks. The IETF Trust is not and does not intend to be the ultimate source and origin of IANA services. Unlike copyrights and patents, trademarks can't be owned by administrators; they need to be owned by the source of the services. Further, the IETF Trust is clearly not granting ICANN the right to provide the IANA Services, so it is even more inappropriate for the IETF Trust to be the owner of the mark associated with those services. > > An acceptable alternative may be to have PTI, rather than ICANN, own the IANA trademarks. This is actually a simpler solution and is consistent with trademark law and practice. This also contributes to separability, since all of the IFO-related assets would be in a single entity. > > If we assume for a moment that the IETF Trust were to own the IANA trademarks, significant issues arise. > > In a trademark license, the IETF Trust, as licensor, would have the power to terminate the license according to its terms (e.g., for material breach of the agreement, misuse of the trademark, etc.) or to decide not to renew the license, in which case ICANN would no longer have the right to use the IANA trademark in the provision of services. It would be inappropriate for the IETF Trust to have this power, without accountability to and oversight by the names and numbers communities. A mechanism would need to built for that. > > Quality control presents another challenge. In virtually all circumstances, a licensor exercises these quality control obligations through an employee or employees knowledgeable and capable of exercising quality control over the licensee and its services. .It may also be appropriate for the operational communities to be involved in quality control and other aspects of the license as well, especially since quality control and trademark usage guidelines can be changed from time to time, typically at the licensor's discretion, and since the IETF is not in a position to exercise quality control in the names and numbers space. This may require amendment of the IETF Trust Agreement, as well as the drafting of a somewhat unusual trademark license. > > Furthermore, the IETF Trust would also be responsible for policing and enforcement of the trademark against third parties and for maintenance of trademark registrations. > > It is not clear how the IETF Trust intends to carry out any of these roles. > > Also, for the IETF Trust to become the owner of the IANA trademark, ICANN would need to assign all of its right, title and interest in and to the IANA trademark to the IETF Trust, along with all goodwill relating to the mark (typically, in exchange for good and valuable consideration). This may require a valuation of the IANA trademark and its associated goodwill, which in turn may have tax or other financial consequences for one or both parties. > > Finally, the IETF Trust, as such, may not be capable of owning the > IANA Trademark, since the IETF Trust does not appear to be a "legal > entity." If this is correct, the Trustees (in their role as Trustees) > are the collective owners of the IANA Trademark (in trust for the > IETF, as Beneficiaries of the IETF Trust), and would need to enter > into the trademark license (again, in their role as Trustees of the > Trust). This appears to be consistent with Section 9.5 of the Amended > and Restated Trust Agreement and the ownership of the IETF trademarks > (which are owned by "The Trustees of the IETF Trust") in the USPTO > database. (Oddly, this is inconsistent with the IETF General > Trademark License (on the IETF Trust website) which states that the > IETF Trust is the licensor of the IETF marks, and which also lacks > appropriate quality control provisions.) > > Greg Shatan > > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:18 AM, manning > wrote: > Missed the attachment. which now is attached! > > > manning > bmanning at karoshi.com > PO Box 12317 > Marina del Rey, CA 90295 > 310.322.8102 > > > > On 10June2015Wednesday, at 0:12, manning > wrote: > > > > > On 19 May 2015, the number community provided specific feedback regarding the need for alignment on the IETF trademark and domain (see attached email from Izumi to the CWG call for comments). > > > > Did you notice that the most recent draft (v5) for discussion that came out yesterday morning specifically moves farther away from this direction, leaving these marks in ICANN rather than moving them to the IETF Trust? > > > > CWG email re new draft - > > - > l> Draft Document - > > > aea1179e/FinalTransitionProposal_v5-Redline-commentsandeditsfordiscu > > ssion-0001.docx> > > > > Proposed text in most recent document - > > > >> " ICANN grants to PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, > >> worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related > >> trademarks, and all applications and registrations therefor, for > >> use in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI > >> Contract. " > > > > this moves the draft farther away from the received comments, and would this make the ICG's job of aligning the various proposals from the affected parties into a cohesive plan even more difficult? > > > > It might be premature to go to BA with this as an accepted direction, without concurrence from the affected parties. > > > > > > manning > > bmanning at karoshi.com > > PO Box 12317 > > Marina del Rey, CA 90295 > > 310.322.8102 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship > > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 18 16:25:41 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:25:41 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Substitute for the "Process Summary" section? Message-ID: For a detailed breakdown of the process used to develop the proposal, see this link http://www.ianacg.org/calls-for-input/#proposals Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Jun 18 20:37:45 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:37:45 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for ICG Face-to-Face meeting - Day 2 (Friday 19 June) Message-ID: <029201d0aa06$a33d1780$e9b74680$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Please find the revised agenda for the ICG meeting tomorrow: Friday, 19 June 09:00-09:15 Agenda review 09:15-10:45 Planning for public outreach before and after public comment period - Materials needed - Audiences to target - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries 10:45-11:15 Break 11:15-12:30 NTIA Response 12:30-13:30 Lunch 13:30-14:00 IANA Trademark and domain name issues 14:00-15:00 Talking points for ICANN meeting week 15:00-15:30 Break 15:30-15:45 Planning for June 25 working session 15:45-16:00 Post-ICANN 53 call and meeting planning 16:00-17:00 Wrap up Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Jun 18 20:53:17 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 17:53:17 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 - Day 1: Action items, Decisions taken Message-ID: <02c101d0aa08$cea75f00$6bf61d00$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the two lists for ICG F2F Meeting 5 - Day 1 below: ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 - Day 1 Action items: 1. ICG Chairs to draft a question to go to the communities regarding the IANA trademark and domain name, send to the internal-cg mailing list and discuss and finalize during Day 2 of the Face-to-Face meeting. 2. ICG Liaisons to CCWG-Accountability to go back to the CCWG Co-chairs to clarify when the bylaw changes will take place in the CCWG process, specifically when the actual text is to be produced, and bring this information back to the ICG. 3. ICG Chairs to draft a response to the NTIA letter (including references to the ICG timeline and contingencies, input received from the three operational communities, and resources for the IANA team), send to the internal-cg mailing list for discussion on Day 2 of the Face-to-Face meeting. Decisions taken: 1. Volunteer group to complete individual assessment of the Names proposal by 7 July, in time for discussion on the ICG call on 8 July. Volunteer list: Russ Housley, Russ Mundy, Alan Barrett, Keith Davidson, Martin Boyle, Mary Uduma, Demi Getschko 2. Volunteer group to complete individual assessment of the combined proposal by 14 July, in time for discussion on the ICG call on 15 July. Volunteer list: Lynn St. Amour, Milton Mueller, Manal Ismail, Keith Drazek, Russ Housley, Joseph Alhadeff, Paul Wilson, Narelle Clark, Xiaodong Lee. 3. Volunteer group to look at formulating public comment questions to be the same volunteer drafting team for the combined proposal preface/introduction/executive summary. Volunteer list: Alissa Cooper, Jean-Jacques Subrenat, Milton Mueller, Lynn St. Amour, Martin Boyle, Russ Housley, Manal Ismail, Joseph Alhadeff, Kavouss Arasteh, Daniel Karrenberg. 4. Volunteer group (including liaisons) to continue to flag issues in CCWG-Accountability that may impact ICG's assessment process. Volunteer group to look into how CCWG-Accountability's work may impact the CWG-IANA proposal and final combined proposal. Volunteer list: Lynn St. Amour, Milton Mueller, Kavouss Arasteh (ICG Liaison to CCWG), Keith Drazek (ICG Liaison to CCWG), Michael Niebel, Manal Ismail. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Jun 18 23:31:02 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:31:02 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft note to CWG regarding IANA trademark and iana.org domain name Message-ID: See below for discussion tomorrow. --- Subject: Coordination regarding IANA trademarks and domain names To: CWG Cc: IANAPLAN, CRISP The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI’s activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text is not something that the CWG has fully worked through and that the matter raised in the text has been expressly left to implementation. The text is indicated as being an initial draft subject to further negotiations. During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing a potential incompatabilities between the three operational community proposals. First, both the IETF and RIR communities have been and and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3353 RFCs over several decades. An exclusive license is not compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term. Second, the RIR community has specified expectations regarding the IANA trademark and domain name [2] -- namely, that the IANA trademark and domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made to be compatible in this regard. After a discussion in these communities, they reported back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support such a decision. [3] Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extent to the domain name as well. The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. Given that the text in question from Annex S of the CWG proposal has not been thoroughly discussed in the CWG and is an initial draft, the ICG would like to request that the CWG work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC. Thank you, Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG [1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132 [2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community’s perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition." [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html From paf at frobbit.se Fri Jun 19 00:23:44 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:23:44 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling Message-ID: Hi, Alissa and myself spent some time starting to write a response to the inquiry from Strickling. You can see the initial draft below. When discussing the content we did though detect a few things which we do believe can change the response. Let me take them in random order. A. The question was related to when transition can happen, and that is not before a complete proposal has not only been submitted to NTIA, but also been implemented. B. The longest timeframe we have got is 3-4 months, but on top of this is an unknown quantity of time needed for various steps in the US Government for evaluation and final transition. If the last (unknown) steps takes say 3-4 months as well, we talk about a 6-8 month timeframe. C. The timeline of CCWG Accountability is to be discussed Friday (i.e. tomorrow). The timeline indications we have seen talk about June-July 2016, and one can ask whether any of the OC proposals can be claimed to be implemented before CCWG Accountability is done. D. In reality, the question is not about detailed timeline, but rather in a broad view how long time is needed. And given the unknowns it is probably difficult to make estimations in shorter time units than 3 months, or maybe 6 month units. Based on the above, that we have got responses that required implementation steps in the proposals from the operational communities can be done within 3-4 months, that the CCWG Accountability have a timeline that indicate June-July 2016 (which is further away in time) we draw the conclusion that the CCWG Accountability is what will set the timeline, and because of that ICG have two alternatives: 1. To state we do believe ICG proposal can be implemented in 3-4 months plus time it takes for US Government (which if that also takes 3-4 months lead to 6-8 month timeframe). 2. Given the data we have, that CCWG is driving the timeline, we coordinate with CCWG Accountability and even though one letter was sent to ICG Chairs and one to CCWG Chairs, we send in one response, which is built upon mainly the timeline CCWG Accountability will discuss tomorrow, and we use the data ICG have received as indications that ICG will be faster than CCWG regarding implementation. When we stopped working today, Alissa and I where leaning towards alternative (2), although we (as you can see below) started writing on something according to alternative (1). Please advice. Patrik & Alissa Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information United States Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling: Thank you for your letter concerning the IANA stewardship transition. As noted in your letter, there are multiple steps remaining before the transition will be complete: the finalization of the transition proposal, the U.S. Government’s evaluation of the proposal, and the implementation of the work items identified by the communities as prerequisites for the transition. This letter provides input about the first and last of these steps. The ICG received and assessed the proposals from the number resources and protocol parameters communities earlier this year. We have just received the domain names proposal from the CWG. The finalization steps that remain include the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, the ICG’s assessment of the combined proposal containing all three components, solicitation and analysis of public comments, and possibly further work in the operational communities depending on the results of the assessments and public comment analysis. These steps are detailed in the attached timeline. The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to the ICANN Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in October. The ICG considers the attached timeline to be optimistic. The timeline may be extended if additional time is needed for community work or public comment analysis, or if the ICG determines that an additional public comment period is necessary. We inquired with the operational communities and the ICANN Board concerning implementation time frames. Links to their responses are included at the end of this letter. Taken together, the responses indicate that the longest implementation step that can be estimated at this time relates to the creation of the PTI, which may require 3-4 months. Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take place in parallel and may be prepared before the transition is complete, while for other steps it is not possible to estimate the time necessary at present. Given these factors, we believe that at a minimum 3-4 months will be required to complete the transition after the proposal is approved by the U.S. government. The IETF community has indicated that it is prepared to transition now. It is possible that as further details concerning Post-Transition IANA (PTI) become available, more IETF community work and agreement may be required. The CRISP team and the RIRs indicated that the numbers community will be prepared to transition by September 30, 2015. Some elements described in the numbers community proposal, such as appointees to the Review Committee, may not be finalized by that time, but these are not considered prerequisites for the transition. The CWG indicated that the work necessary to incorporate the PTI may require 3-4 months depending on complexity and need for multiple iterations of relevant documentation. The time needed to implement other aspects of the CWG proposal, including relevant ICANN bylaws changes, is uncertain. [Insert pointer to CCWG response to NTIA here?] The ICANN Board's views concerning implementation time frames are consistent with these indications from the operational communities. The Board believes the IETF and RIR proposals could be implemented in a matter several of weeks, that the PTI implementation may take several months, and that the time required to implement the CCWG Accountability work items is uncertain. Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the IANA department in some way, and will therefore require time and attention from the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this can be done in parallell with other activities, and will not take longer time than other activities. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From paf at frobbit.se Fri Jun 19 00:50:54 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:50:54 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Speaking points -- first cut Message-ID: <205C9026-7E91-485B-A481-4EF5F4175D6B@frobbit.se> I like speaking points in the form of Q&A. Here is my first cut. Patrik Speaking points Based on actions and decisions: A. Have you identified any issues with CWG Names proposal? Yes, we are discussing IANA trademark issues, similar to what we did for the other OCs. One action from Thursday is for ICG Chairs to draft a question to go to the communities regarding the IANA trademark and domain name, send to the internal-cg mailing list and discuss and finalize during Day 2 of the Face-to-Face meeting. B. Do you have all data you need to respond to the letter from NTIA? No, we are still gathering data. For example, ICG Liaisons to CCWG-Accountability to go back to the CCWG Co-chairs to clarify when the bylaw changes will take place in the CCWG process, specifically when the actual text is to be produced, and bring this information back to the ICG. C. When will you have sent the response to NTIA? We are drafting and discussing the letter at the sessions ICG do have at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. D. Have you started to evaluate the CWG Names proposal? Yes, although we do not have the final proposal, we have a volunteer group that is working on individual assessment of the Names proposal. E. Have you started to evaluate the three proposals? No, we will not start doing that before we have all three proposals. We do though already have a volunteer group to complete individual assessment of the combined proposal already. F. What will the public comment process look like? ICG is still discussing the details, and we do have a volunteer group to look at formulating public comment questions to help the community steer responses in a common direction. G. Have you started to write the common proposal yet? No, but we are already discussing the outline and have a drafting team for the combined proposal preface/introduction/executive summary. H. How are you coordinating with CCWG Accountability? We have a volunteer group (including liaisons) to continue to flag issues in CCWG-Accountability that may impact ICG's assessment process. Volunteer group to look into how CCWG-Accountability's work may impact the CWG-IANA proposal and final combined proposal. Other questions: I. Will you be done by September 30 2015? ICG is reviewing our timeline as part of working on a response to the letter from NTIA. Our current estimate is that more time is needed than between now and September 30. J. If people do not like the proposals, can they object during the ICG public comment period? No, ICG do have a very specific charter to look at for example overlap and conflicts between the proposals, whether the ICG response is complete etc. K. Can transition happen for one of the OC's and not the others? NTIA has stated they want a complete proposal before they evaluate the situation. That said, nothing stop things from happening in parallell, for example implementation of various things the operational communities have identified. L. Is ICG satisfied with the CWG Names proposal? ICG has not received the proposal yet, but is starting a pre-assessment. This has not finished yet. ICG like many others are looking forward to see what the chartering organizations are saying about the CWG Names work. They have time until June 25 to respond. M. What about CCWG Accountability, and their timeline, is that acceptable for ICG? ICG is during ICANN-53 communicating with CCWG Accountability, which just closed their first open comment period. ICG is waiting, like everyone else, on the CCWG Accoutability evaluation of the feedback. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 19 12:30:37 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:30:37 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Draft note to CWG regarding IANA trademark and iana.org domain name In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <93c62c9a954f4826b5ab523061b53ec1@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> I caught a few typos/grammar mistakes. My changes are in brackets > -----Original Message----- > > The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an > exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA > trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities > under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text [was not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus] [and is flagged as] subject to further negotiations. > > During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as > causing [an incompatibility] between the three operational > community proposals. [Both] the IETF and RIR communities have been > [using] and continue to use the term "IANA" [without permission.] For instance, the term has been > cited in 3,353 RFCs over several decades. An exclusive license is not > compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term. > > Second, the RIR community has specified [in its proposal] that the IANA > trademark and domain name [2] [should] be transferred to an entity independent of [any] IANA > Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and > IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made compatible > in this regard. After discussion these communities reported back > that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also > indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the > IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support > such a decision. [3] > > Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org > domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to > extend to the domain name as well. > > The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination > between the communities. Given that the text in question from Annex S of > the CWG proposal has not been thoroughly discussed in the CWG and is an > initial draft, the ICG would like to request that the CWG [reconsider this aspect of its proposal and] work together with > the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the > incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG > communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at > 23:59 UTC. > > Thank you, > Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG > > [1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132 > > [2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA > trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet > Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering > Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. > Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services > Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a > smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the > future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA > trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity > independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure > that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of > the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, > the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. > > The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust > will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of > the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the > preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree > to these expectations as part of the transition." > > [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html > > [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 19 12:30:37 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:30:37 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the good thinking and initial drafting that went into this. My view is that Alternative 2 (explicitly tie the timeframe to the CCWG work and coordinate a response) is the better option. As you note, the response you have drafted seems to align more with Alternative 1. But a lot of the material in there can be (re)used as we prepare a response based on Alternative 2. I doubt whether CCWG chairs have taken the more global view of the timeline that we have put together, so the draft will come in handy as we move forward --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Patrik Fältström > Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:24 PM > To: ICG > Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling > > Hi, > > Alissa and myself spent some time starting to write a response to the inquiry > from Strickling. You can see the initial draft below. When discussing the > content we did though detect a few things which we do believe can change > the response. Let me take them in random order. > > A. The question was related to when transition can happen, and that is not > before a complete proposal has not only been submitted to NTIA, but also > been implemented. > > B. The longest timeframe we have got is 3-4 months, but on top of this is an > unknown quantity of time needed for various steps in the US Government > for evaluation and final transition. If the last (unknown) steps takes say 3-4 > months as well, we talk about a 6-8 month timeframe. > > C. The timeline of CCWG Accountability is to be discussed Friday (i.e. > tomorrow). The timeline indications we have seen talk about June-July 2016, > and one can ask whether any of the OC proposals can be claimed to be > implemented before CCWG Accountability is done. > > D. In reality, the question is not about detailed timeline, but rather in a > broad view how long time is needed. And given the unknowns it is probably > difficult to make estimations in shorter time units than 3 months, or maybe > 6 month units. > > Based on the above, that we have got responses that required > implementation steps in the proposals from the operational communities > can be done within 3-4 months, that the CCWG Accountability have a > timeline that indicate June-July 2016 (which is further away in time) we draw > the conclusion that the CCWG Accountability is what will set the timeline, > and because of that ICG have two alternatives: > > 1. To state we do believe ICG proposal can be implemented in 3-4 months > plus time it takes for US Government (which if that also takes 3-4 months > lead to 6-8 month timeframe). > > 2. Given the data we have, that CCWG is driving the timeline, we coordinate > with CCWG Accountability and even though one letter was sent to ICG > Chairs and one to CCWG Chairs, we send in one response, which is built > upon mainly the timeline CCWG Accountability will discuss tomorrow, and > we use the data ICG have received as indications that ICG will be faster than > CCWG regarding implementation. > > When we stopped working today, Alissa and I where leaning towards > alternative (2), although we (as you can see below) started writing on > something according to alternative (1). > > Please advice. > > Patrik & Alissa > > > > Lawrence E. Strickling > Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information United States > Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 > > > Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling: > > Thank you for your letter concerning the IANA stewardship transition. As > noted in your letter, there are multiple steps remaining before the transition > will be complete: the finalization of the transition proposal, the U.S. > Government’s evaluation of the proposal, and the implementation of the > work items identified by the communities as prerequisites for the transition. > This letter provides input about the first and last of these steps. > > The ICG received and assessed the proposals from the number resources and > protocol parameters communities earlier this year. We have just received > the domain names proposal from the CWG. The finalization steps that > remain include the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, the > ICG’s assessment of the combined proposal containing all three > components, solicitation and analysis of public comments, and possibly > further work in the operational communities depending on the results of the > assessments and public comment analysis. These steps are detailed in the > attached timeline. The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be > concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to the ICANN > Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in October. > > The ICG considers the attached timeline to be optimistic. The timeline may > be extended if additional time is needed for community work or public > comment analysis, or if the ICG determines that an additional public > comment period is necessary. > > We inquired with the operational communities and the ICANN Board > concerning implementation time frames. Links to their responses are > included at the end of this letter. Taken together, the responses indicate > that the longest implementation step that can be estimated at this time > relates to the creation of the PTI, which may require 3-4 months. Many of > the implementation steps across the three communities can take place in > parallel and may be prepared before the transition is complete, while for > other steps it is not possible to estimate the time necessary at present. > Given these factors, we believe that at a minimum 3-4 months will be > required to complete the transition after the proposal is approved by the > U.S. government. > > The IETF community has indicated that it is prepared to transition now. It is > possible that as further details concerning Post-Transition IANA (PTI) become > available, more IETF community work and agreement may be required. > > The CRISP team and the RIRs indicated that the numbers community will be > prepared to transition by September 30, 2015. Some elements described in > the numbers community proposal, such as appointees to the Review > Committee, may not be finalized by that time, but these are not considered > prerequisites for the transition. > > The CWG indicated that the work necessary to incorporate the PTI may > require 3-4 months depending on complexity and need for multiple > iterations of relevant documentation. The time needed to implement other > aspects of the CWG proposal, including relevant ICANN bylaws changes, is > uncertain. [Insert pointer to CCWG response to NTIA here?] > > The ICANN Board's views concerning implementation time frames are > consistent with these indications from the operational communities. The > Board believes the IETF and RIR proposals could be implemented in a matter > several of weeks, that the PTI implementation may take several months, and > that the time required to implement the CCWG Accountability work items is > uncertain. > > Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take > place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the IANA > department in some way, and will therefore require time and attention from > the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this can be done in > parallell with other activities, and will not take longer time than other > activities. From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Jun 19 13:40:40 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:40:40 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] trademark text Message-ID: <7F80477D-0407-49AE-A100-B3074B27E19E@cooperw.in> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: trademark text.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 154748 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Jun 19 13:43:07 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 10:43:07 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Updated agenda for Day 2 of the ICG Meeting 5 Message-ID: <007d01d0aa95$e2e7de80$a8b79b80$@icgsec.asia> Dear All Please see the updated agenda for Day 2 (today) of the ICG Meeting 5. Agenda for: ICG face-to-face Meeting #5 Day 2: Friday 19 June, 2015 - 09:00 - 17:00 ART Location: San Telmo, Sheraton Buenos Aires Hotel & Convention Center Session details: https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/fri-icg Friday, 19 June 09:00-09:15 Agenda review + 1 decision item from day 1 09:15-10:45 Planning for public outreach before and after public comment period - Materials needed - Audiences to target - Responding to media, press, and other inquiries 10:45-11:15 Break 11:15-12:30 NTIA Response 12:30-13:30 Lunch 13:30-14:00 IANA Trademark and domain name issues* 14:00-15:00 Talking points for ICANN meeting week 15:00-15:30 Break 15:30-16:00 Wrap up *Please note that the IANA trademark and domain name issues has already been discussed before the 1st break. Best, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Jun 19 13:48:46 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:48:46 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Communications with the Operational Communities about Amendmends Message-ID: <55841DBE.2000300@ripe.net> I expect there will be a few instances to come when we have to point out incompatibilities or have to suggest alignment on certain points to the operational communities. It is clearly our job to point out these issues. However it is *not* within our mandate to *solve* them. Suggesting solutions is kind of a grey area and we should take great care to separate the 'point out' from the 'suggested solution(s)' in both our discussions and our communications with the operational communities. I hope we can agree on that and act accordingly in the future. If there are objections to this principle, we need a discussion. Daniel From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 19 14:20:04 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:20:04 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] trademark text In-Reply-To: <7F80477D-0407-49AE-A100-B3074B27E19E@cooperw.in> References: <7F80477D-0407-49AE-A100-B3074B27E19E@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <625f4d3c0e5f47a3a1b1f8217e3501ad@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> This looks good to me --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Alissa Cooper > Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 9:41 AM > To: ICG > Subject: [Internal-cg] trademark text > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Jun 19 14:44:14 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:44:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55842ABE.9060505@ripe.net> "Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the IANA department in some way, and will therefore require time and attention from the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this can be done in parallell with other activities, and will not take longer time than other activities." To make my suggestions concrete and succumb again to the temptation of drafting in committee: "Many of the implementation steps across the three operational communities need to take place in parallel in order to realise the time line we have outlined in this response. We have received signals that ICANN staff resources may become critical if this parallelism is not realised. It is therefore important that all parties are not blocked or perceive to be prevented from taking all steps that can be taken before NTIA withdraws. We therefore ask you to clarify that it is acceptable to you to make all preparations that do not directly affect the agreement you have with ICANN." On 19.06.15 14:30 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > Thanks for the good thinking and initial drafting that went into this. > > My view is that Alternative 2 (explicitly tie the timeframe to the CCWG work and coordinate a response) is the better option. > As you note, the response you have drafted seems to align more with Alternative 1. But a lot of the material in there can be (re)used as we prepare a response based on Alternative 2. I doubt whether CCWG chairs have taken the more global view of the timeline that we have put together, so the draft will come in handy as we move forward > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Patrik Fältström >> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:24 PM >> To: ICG >> Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling >> >> Hi, >> >> Alissa and myself spent some time starting to write a response to the inquiry >> from Strickling. You can see the initial draft below. When discussing the >> content we did though detect a few things which we do believe can change >> the response. Let me take them in random order. >> >> A. The question was related to when transition can happen, and that is not >> before a complete proposal has not only been submitted to NTIA, but also >> been implemented. >> >> B. The longest timeframe we have got is 3-4 months, but on top of this is an >> unknown quantity of time needed for various steps in the US Government >> for evaluation and final transition. If the last (unknown) steps takes say 3-4 >> months as well, we talk about a 6-8 month timeframe. >> >> C. The timeline of CCWG Accountability is to be discussed Friday (i.e. >> tomorrow). The timeline indications we have seen talk about June-July 2016, >> and one can ask whether any of the OC proposals can be claimed to be >> implemented before CCWG Accountability is done. >> >> D. In reality, the question is not about detailed timeline, but rather in a >> broad view how long time is needed. And given the unknowns it is probably >> difficult to make estimations in shorter time units than 3 months, or maybe >> 6 month units. >> >> Based on the above, that we have got responses that required >> implementation steps in the proposals from the operational communities >> can be done within 3-4 months, that the CCWG Accountability have a >> timeline that indicate June-July 2016 (which is further away in time) we draw >> the conclusion that the CCWG Accountability is what will set the timeline, >> and because of that ICG have two alternatives: >> >> 1. To state we do believe ICG proposal can be implemented in 3-4 months >> plus time it takes for US Government (which if that also takes 3-4 months >> lead to 6-8 month timeframe). >> >> 2. Given the data we have, that CCWG is driving the timeline, we coordinate >> with CCWG Accountability and even though one letter was sent to ICG >> Chairs and one to CCWG Chairs, we send in one response, which is built >> upon mainly the timeline CCWG Accountability will discuss tomorrow, and >> we use the data ICG have received as indications that ICG will be faster than >> CCWG regarding implementation. >> >> When we stopped working today, Alissa and I where leaning towards >> alternative (2), although we (as you can see below) started writing on >> something according to alternative (1). >> >> Please advice. >> >> Patrik & Alissa >> >> >> >> Lawrence E. Strickling >> Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information United States >> Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 >> >> >> Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling: >> >> Thank you for your letter concerning the IANA stewardship transition. As >> noted in your letter, there are multiple steps remaining before the transition >> will be complete: the finalization of the transition proposal, the U.S. >> Government’s evaluation of the proposal, and the implementation of the >> work items identified by the communities as prerequisites for the transition. >> This letter provides input about the first and last of these steps. >> >> The ICG received and assessed the proposals from the number resources and >> protocol parameters communities earlier this year. We have just received >> the domain names proposal from the CWG. The finalization steps that >> remain include the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, the >> ICG’s assessment of the combined proposal containing all three >> components, solicitation and analysis of public comments, and possibly >> further work in the operational communities depending on the results of the >> assessments and public comment analysis. These steps are detailed in the >> attached timeline. The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be >> concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to the ICANN >> Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in October. >> >> The ICG considers the attached timeline to be optimistic. The timeline may >> be extended if additional time is needed for community work or public >> comment analysis, or if the ICG determines that an additional public >> comment period is necessary. >> >> We inquired with the operational communities and the ICANN Board >> concerning implementation time frames. Links to their responses are >> included at the end of this letter. Taken together, the responses indicate >> that the longest implementation step that can be estimated at this time >> relates to the creation of the PTI, which may require 3-4 months. Many of >> the implementation steps across the three communities can take place in >> parallel and may be prepared before the transition is complete, while for >> other steps it is not possible to estimate the time necessary at present. >> Given these factors, we believe that at a minimum 3-4 months will be >> required to complete the transition after the proposal is approved by the >> U.S. government. >> >> The IETF community has indicated that it is prepared to transition now. It is >> possible that as further details concerning Post-Transition IANA (PTI) become >> available, more IETF community work and agreement may be required. >> >> The CRISP team and the RIRs indicated that the numbers community will be >> prepared to transition by September 30, 2015. Some elements described in >> the numbers community proposal, such as appointees to the Review >> Committee, may not be finalized by that time, but these are not considered >> prerequisites for the transition. >> >> The CWG indicated that the work necessary to incorporate the PTI may >> require 3-4 months depending on complexity and need for multiple >> iterations of relevant documentation. The time needed to implement other >> aspects of the CWG proposal, including relevant ICANN bylaws changes, is >> uncertain. [Insert pointer to CCWG response to NTIA here?] >> >> The ICANN Board's views concerning implementation time frames are >> consistent with these indications from the operational communities. The >> Board believes the IETF and RIR proposals could be implemented in a matter >> several of weeks, that the PTI implementation may take several months, and >> that the time required to implement the CCWG Accountability work items is >> uncertain. >> >> Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take >> place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the IANA >> department in some way, and will therefore require time and attention from >> the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this can be done in >> parallell with other activities, and will not take longer time than other >> activities. > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Jun 19 15:34:24 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:34:24 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Photos from F2F Message-ID: From Alain Durand: https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0352plgjGVUMCK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Jun 19 15:48:37 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:48:37 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name References: <4BE1D2D2-70E9-48F1-939F-92943600D081@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <6742FF30-3CA0-41FC-A970-2DBA2B99ED8A@cooperw.in> This message went out. Begin forwarded message: > From: Alissa Cooper > Subject: [CWG-Stewardship] ICG request concerning IANA trademark and iana.org domain name > Date: June 19, 2015 at 12:43:31 PM GMT-3 > To: "cwg-stewardship at icann.org IANA" > > Dear CWG, > > The CWG transition proposal suggests that "ICANN will grants [sic] PTI an exclusive, royalty-free, fully-paid, worldwide license to use the IANA trademark and all related trademarks in connection with PTI's activities under the ICANN-PTI Contract." [1] Our understanding is that this text was not a product of full CWG deliberation and consensus and is flagged as subject to further negotiations. > > During the ICG face-to-face meeting #5 on June 18 this text was identified as causing an incompatibility between the three operational community proposals. Both the IETF and RIR communities have been using and continue to use the term "IANA." For instance, the term has been cited in 3,353 RFCs over several decades. The CWG’s proposal for ICANN to grant an exclusive license may not be compatible with all three communities making continued use of the term. > > Second, the RIR community has specified in its proposal that the IANA trademark and domain name [2] should be transferred to an entity independent of any IANA Numbering Services Operator. In February 2015, the ICG asked the RIR and IETF communities to report if their proposals can be made compatible in this regard. After discussion these communities reported back that there was no fundamental discrepancy. [3, 4] The IETF Trust also indicated its willingness to hold intellectual property rights relating to the IANA functions and the IETF community expressed its willingness to support such a decision. [3] > > Finally, the current text discusses only the trademarks and not the iana.org domain name. Thus it is unclear whether the CWG proposal text is meant to extend to the domain name as well. > > The ICG has identified this topic as something that requires coordination between the communities. The ICG would like to request that in completing its proposal the CWG review the proposals from the protocol parameters and numbers communities, determine if it can adopt an approach taken by those communities, and if not, work together with the protocol parameters and numbers communities to reconcile the incompatibilities that have been identified. The ICG requests that the CWG communicate back to us a proposed resolution to this issue by July 2 at 23:59 UTC. > > Thank you, > Alissa, Patrik and Mohamed on behalf of the ICG > > > [1] CWG Stewardship proposal, Annex S, page 132 > > [2] Numbers community proposal, page 10: "With regards to the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain, it is the expectation of the Internet Number Community that both are associated with the IANA Numbering Services and not with a particular IANA Numbering Services Operator. Identifying an organization that is not the IANA Numbering Services Operator and which will permanently hold these assets will facilitate a smooth transition should another operator (or operators) be selected in the future. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that the IANA trademark and the IANA.ORG domain name be transferred to an entity independent of the IANA Numbering Services Operator, in order to ensure that these assets are used in a non-discriminatory manner for the benefit of the entire community. From the Internet Number Community's perspective, the IETF Trust would be an acceptable candidate for this role. > > The transfer of the IANA trademark and IANA.ORG domain to the IETF Trust will require additional coordination with the other affected communities of the IANA Services, namely, protocol parameters and names. It is the preference of the Internet Number Community that all relevant parties agree to these expectations as part of the transition." > > [3] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003103.html > > [4] http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/internal-cg/2015-February/003105.html > _______________________________________________ > CWG-Stewardship mailing list > CWG-Stewardship at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Fri Jun 19 16:21:47 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (joseph alhadeff) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:21:47 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling In-Reply-To: <55842ABE.9060505@ripe.net> References: <55842ABE.9060505@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5584419B.1060801@oracle.com> I would think perhaps a bit more flesh on the bones and a slightly different track; my concern with Daniel's approach was that it provides the impression that a reason reason for parallel implementation by the communities is to meet our time frame, when we are developing a time frame based on their possibility.. The role of the ICG in coordination is highly dependent on the ability of the communities to provide us with the inputs that are the subject of coordination. Once we have the proposals from the communities (we still await one) in stable form, we anticipate that our process could be accomplished in three to four months, with some possible slippage due to the need for further public comment should substantial changes to the initial combined proposal be needed after a first round of comments. We are also mindful of some possible dependencies between the names proposal and the other accountability work-stream which may also impact timing. In relation to the implementation of the proposal, the communities have brought to our attention that some elements of implementation may be dependent on other actions while other elements may be run in parallel. We have discussed and are inclined to have the communities provider better inputs to us on the sequence of steps and potential for an "as ready" for implementation model (enabling a phased implementation) once the proposal has been endorsed. Our collecting this information will not only assist in allowing everyone to better understand the time-frames of implementation, but will also help assure coordination across communities regarding the ordering and execution of implementation steps as appropriate. On 6/19/2015 10:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > "Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take > place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the > IANA department in some way, and will therefore require time and > attention from the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this > can be done in parallell with other activities, and will not take longer > time than other activities." > > To make my suggestions concrete and succumb again to the temptation of > drafting in committee: > > "Many of the implementation steps across the three operational > communities need to take place in parallel in order to realise the time > line we have outlined in this response. We have received signals that > ICANN staff resources may become critical if this parallelism is not > realised. It is therefore important that all parties are not blocked or > perceive to be prevented from taking all steps that can be taken before > NTIA withdraws. We therefore ask you to clarify that it is acceptable to > you to make all preparations that do not directly affect the agreement > you have with ICANN." > > > > On 19.06.15 14:30 , Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Thanks for the good thinking and initial drafting that went into this. >> >> My view is that Alternative 2 (explicitly tie the timeframe to the CCWG work and coordinate a response) is the better option. >> As you note, the response you have drafted seems to align more with Alternative 1. But a lot of the material in there can be (re)used as we prepare a response based on Alternative 2. I doubt whether CCWG chairs have taken the more global view of the timeline that we have put together, so the draft will come in handy as we move forward >> >> --MM >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Patrik Fältström >>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:24 PM >>> To: ICG >>> Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Alissa and myself spent some time starting to write a response to the inquiry >>> from Strickling. You can see the initial draft below. When discussing the >>> content we did though detect a few things which we do believe can change >>> the response. Let me take them in random order. >>> >>> A. The question was related to when transition can happen, and that is not >>> before a complete proposal has not only been submitted to NTIA, but also >>> been implemented. >>> >>> B. The longest timeframe we have got is 3-4 months, but on top of this is an >>> unknown quantity of time needed for various steps in the US Government >>> for evaluation and final transition. If the last (unknown) steps takes say 3-4 >>> months as well, we talk about a 6-8 month timeframe. >>> >>> C. The timeline of CCWG Accountability is to be discussed Friday (i.e. >>> tomorrow). The timeline indications we have seen talk about June-July 2016, >>> and one can ask whether any of the OC proposals can be claimed to be >>> implemented before CCWG Accountability is done. >>> >>> D. In reality, the question is not about detailed timeline, but rather in a >>> broad view how long time is needed. And given the unknowns it is probably >>> difficult to make estimations in shorter time units than 3 months, or maybe >>> 6 month units. >>> >>> Based on the above, that we have got responses that required >>> implementation steps in the proposals from the operational communities >>> can be done within 3-4 months, that the CCWG Accountability have a >>> timeline that indicate June-July 2016 (which is further away in time) we draw >>> the conclusion that the CCWG Accountability is what will set the timeline, >>> and because of that ICG have two alternatives: >>> >>> 1. To state we do believe ICG proposal can be implemented in 3-4 months >>> plus time it takes for US Government (which if that also takes 3-4 months >>> lead to 6-8 month timeframe). >>> >>> 2. Given the data we have, that CCWG is driving the timeline, we coordinate >>> with CCWG Accountability and even though one letter was sent to ICG >>> Chairs and one to CCWG Chairs, we send in one response, which is built >>> upon mainly the timeline CCWG Accountability will discuss tomorrow, and >>> we use the data ICG have received as indications that ICG will be faster than >>> CCWG regarding implementation. >>> >>> When we stopped working today, Alissa and I where leaning towards >>> alternative (2), although we (as you can see below) started writing on >>> something according to alternative (1). >>> >>> Please advice. >>> >>> Patrik & Alissa >>> >>> >>> >>> Lawrence E. Strickling >>> Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information United States >>> Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 >>> >>> >>> Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling: >>> >>> Thank you for your letter concerning the IANA stewardship transition. As >>> noted in your letter, there are multiple steps remaining before the transition >>> will be complete: the finalization of the transition proposal, the U.S. >>> Government’s evaluation of the proposal, and the implementation of the >>> work items identified by the communities as prerequisites for the transition. >>> This letter provides input about the first and last of these steps. >>> >>> The ICG received and assessed the proposals from the number resources and >>> protocol parameters communities earlier this year. We have just received >>> the domain names proposal from the CWG. The finalization steps that >>> remain include the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, the >>> ICG’s assessment of the combined proposal containing all three >>> components, solicitation and analysis of public comments, and possibly >>> further work in the operational communities depending on the results of the >>> assessments and public comment analysis. These steps are detailed in the >>> attached timeline. The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be >>> concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to the ICANN >>> Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in October. >>> >>> The ICG considers the attached timeline to be optimistic. The timeline may >>> be extended if additional time is needed for community work or public >>> comment analysis, or if the ICG determines that an additional public >>> comment period is necessary. >>> >>> We inquired with the operational communities and the ICANN Board >>> concerning implementation time frames. Links to their responses are >>> included at the end of this letter. Taken together, the responses indicate >>> that the longest implementation step that can be estimated at this time >>> relates to the creation of the PTI, which may require 3-4 months. Many of >>> the implementation steps across the three communities can take place in >>> parallel and may be prepared before the transition is complete, while for >>> other steps it is not possible to estimate the time necessary at present. >>> Given these factors, we believe that at a minimum 3-4 months will be >>> required to complete the transition after the proposal is approved by the >>> U.S. government. >>> >>> The IETF community has indicated that it is prepared to transition now. It is >>> possible that as further details concerning Post-Transition IANA (PTI) become >>> available, more IETF community work and agreement may be required. >>> >>> The CRISP team and the RIRs indicated that the numbers community will be >>> prepared to transition by September 30, 2015. Some elements described in >>> the numbers community proposal, such as appointees to the Review >>> Committee, may not be finalized by that time, but these are not considered >>> prerequisites for the transition. >>> >>> The CWG indicated that the work necessary to incorporate the PTI may >>> require 3-4 months depending on complexity and need for multiple >>> iterations of relevant documentation. The time needed to implement other >>> aspects of the CWG proposal, including relevant ICANN bylaws changes, is >>> uncertain. [Insert pointer to CCWG response to NTIA here?] >>> >>> The ICANN Board's views concerning implementation time frames are >>> consistent with these indications from the operational communities. The >>> Board believes the IETF and RIR proposals could be implemented in a matter >>> several of weeks, that the PTI implementation may take several months, and >>> that the time required to implement the CCWG Accountability work items is >>> uncertain. >>> >>> Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take >>> place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the IANA >>> department in some way, and will therefore require time and attention from >>> the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this can be done in >>> parallell with other activities, and will not take longer time than other >>> activities. >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Jun 19 17:41:33 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 14:41:33 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Speaking points -- first cut In-Reply-To: <205C9026-7E91-485B-A481-4EF5F4175D6B@frobbit.se> References: <205C9026-7E91-485B-A481-4EF5F4175D6B@frobbit.se> Message-ID: Revised speaking points attached based on F2F discussion. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN 53_Talking Points_v1-alc.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 121622 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > I like speaking points in the form of Q&A. Here is my first cut. > > Patrik > > Speaking points > > Based on actions and decisions: > > A. Have you identified any issues with CWG Names proposal? > > Yes, we are discussing IANA trademark issues, similar to what we did for the other OCs. One action from Thursday is for ICG Chairs to draft a question to go to the communities regarding the IANA trademark and domain name, send to the internal-cg mailing list and discuss and finalize during Day 2 of the Face-to-Face meeting. > > B. Do you have all data you need to respond to the letter from NTIA? > > No, we are still gathering data. For example, ICG Liaisons to CCWG-Accountability to go back to the CCWG Co-chairs to clarify when the bylaw changes will take place in the CCWG process, specifically when the actual text is to be produced, and bring this information back to the ICG. > > C. When will you have sent the response to NTIA? > > We are drafting and discussing the letter at the sessions ICG do have at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. > > D. Have you started to evaluate the CWG Names proposal? > > Yes, although we do not have the final proposal, we have a volunteer group that is working on individual assessment of the Names proposal. > > E. Have you started to evaluate the three proposals? > > No, we will not start doing that before we have all three proposals. We do though already have a volunteer group to complete individual assessment of the combined proposal already. > > F. What will the public comment process look like? > > ICG is still discussing the details, and we do have a volunteer group to look at formulating public comment questions to help the community steer responses in a common direction. > > G. Have you started to write the common proposal yet? > > No, but we are already discussing the outline and have a drafting team for the combined proposal preface/introduction/executive summary. > > H. How are you coordinating with CCWG Accountability? > > We have a volunteer group (including liaisons) to continue to flag issues in CCWG-Accountability that may impact ICG's assessment process. Volunteer group to look into how CCWG-Accountability's work may impact the CWG-IANA proposal and final combined proposal. > > Other questions: > > I. Will you be done by September 30 2015? > > ICG is reviewing our timeline as part of working on a response to the letter from NTIA. Our current estimate is that more time is needed than between now and September 30. > > J. If people do not like the proposals, can they object during the ICG public comment period? > > No, ICG do have a very specific charter to look at for example overlap and conflicts between the proposals, whether the ICG response is complete etc. > > K. Can transition happen for one of the OC's and not the others? > > NTIA has stated they want a complete proposal before they evaluate the situation. That said, nothing stop things from happening in parallell, for example implementation of various things the operational communities have identified. > > L. Is ICG satisfied with the CWG Names proposal? > > ICG has not received the proposal yet, but is starting a pre-assessment. This has not finished yet. ICG like many others are looking forward to see what the chartering organizations are saying about the CWG Names work. They have time until June 25 to respond. > > M. What about CCWG Accountability, and their timeline, is that acceptable for ICG? > > ICG is during ICANN-53 communicating with CCWG Accountability, which just closed their first open comment period. ICG is waiting, like everyone else, on the CCWG Accoutability evaluation of the feedback. > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Fri Jun 19 18:04:01 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:04:01 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 - Day 2: Action items, Decisions taken Message-ID: <016601d0aaba$53d03f60$fb70be20$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the two lists for ICG F2F Meeting 5 – Day 2 below: ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 – Day 2 Summary of Action Items: 1. Secretariat to send an email to the communications subgroup volunteers for them to meet early in the ICANN week. 2. Cooper to refine the grammar of draft letter to CWG-IANA regarding IANA trademark and domain name and then send it to the CWG-IANA. Summary of Decisions Taken: 1. Once the CCWG workstream 1 output has been sent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets the CWG's requirements. 2. The list of communications subgroup volunteers: Cooper, Fältström, El-Bashir, Subrenat, Alhadeff, Arkko, De Santos, Lee, and Secretariat. 3. The ICG to reconvene on Thursday, June 25 to further discuss and draft the ICG’s response to NTIA. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Jun 19 18:59:31 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:59:31 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Speaking points -- first cut In-Reply-To: References: <205C9026-7E91-485B-A481-4EF5F4175D6B@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <056589AE-A4A6-40A2-8DB4-B1BF285D9A87@cooperw.in> Revision including text from Joe re accountability. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN 53_Talking Points_v2.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 124187 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Jun 19, 2015, at 2:41 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Revised speaking points attached based on F2F discussion. > > > On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:50 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > >> I like speaking points in the form of Q&A. Here is my first cut. >> >> Patrik >> >> Speaking points >> >> Based on actions and decisions: >> >> A. Have you identified any issues with CWG Names proposal? >> >> Yes, we are discussing IANA trademark issues, similar to what we did for the other OCs. One action from Thursday is for ICG Chairs to draft a question to go to the communities regarding the IANA trademark and domain name, send to the internal-cg mailing list and discuss and finalize during Day 2 of the Face-to-Face meeting. >> >> B. Do you have all data you need to respond to the letter from NTIA? >> >> No, we are still gathering data. For example, ICG Liaisons to CCWG-Accountability to go back to the CCWG Co-chairs to clarify when the bylaw changes will take place in the CCWG process, specifically when the actual text is to be produced, and bring this information back to the ICG. >> >> C. When will you have sent the response to NTIA? >> >> We are drafting and discussing the letter at the sessions ICG do have at the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. >> >> D. Have you started to evaluate the CWG Names proposal? >> >> Yes, although we do not have the final proposal, we have a volunteer group that is working on individual assessment of the Names proposal. >> >> E. Have you started to evaluate the three proposals? >> >> No, we will not start doing that before we have all three proposals. We do though already have a volunteer group to complete individual assessment of the combined proposal already. >> >> F. What will the public comment process look like? >> >> ICG is still discussing the details, and we do have a volunteer group to look at formulating public comment questions to help the community steer responses in a common direction. >> >> G. Have you started to write the common proposal yet? >> >> No, but we are already discussing the outline and have a drafting team for the combined proposal preface/introduction/executive summary. >> >> H. How are you coordinating with CCWG Accountability? >> >> We have a volunteer group (including liaisons) to continue to flag issues in CCWG-Accountability that may impact ICG's assessment process. Volunteer group to look into how CCWG-Accountability's work may impact the CWG-IANA proposal and final combined proposal. >> >> Other questions: >> >> I. Will you be done by September 30 2015? >> >> ICG is reviewing our timeline as part of working on a response to the letter from NTIA. Our current estimate is that more time is needed than between now and September 30. >> >> J. If people do not like the proposals, can they object during the ICG public comment period? >> >> No, ICG do have a very specific charter to look at for example overlap and conflicts between the proposals, whether the ICG response is complete etc. >> >> K. Can transition happen for one of the OC's and not the others? >> >> NTIA has stated they want a complete proposal before they evaluate the situation. That said, nothing stop things from happening in parallell, for example implementation of various things the operational communities have identified. >> >> L. Is ICG satisfied with the CWG Names proposal? >> >> ICG has not received the proposal yet, but is starting a pre-assessment. This has not finished yet. ICG like many others are looking forward to see what the chartering organizations are saying about the CWG Names work. They have time until June 25 to respond. >> >> M. What about CCWG Accountability, and their timeline, is that acceptable for ICG? >> >> ICG is during ICANN-53 communicating with CCWG Accountability, which just closed their first open comment period. ICG is waiting, like everyone else, on the CCWG Accoutability evaluation of the feedback. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kdrazek at verisign.com Fri Jun 19 19:10:16 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:10:16 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: Inquiry from ICG Regarding Proposed Bylaws Amendments In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549858784@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B9549858784@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954985C5B8@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> All, here’s the email I sent to the CCWG Accountability Co-Chairs regarding the timing issues we discussed yesterday. Keith From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 9:02 AM To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Inquiry from ICG Regarding Proposed Bylaws Amendments Dear Co-Chairs, In our capacity as ICG Liaisons to the CCWG-Accountability, Kavouss and I have been asked to request feedback concerning the projected timing and procedure for finalizing proposed bylaws changes. As you know, the CCWG and the ICG each received an inquiry from NTIA regarding projected timelines for proposal completion, to include implementation. This request is intended to help inform the ICG’s response to NTIA. As one of the three operational communities submitting proposals to the ICG, the CWG-Transition has identified the need for a fundamental bylaw amendment to secure the PTI structure. For the purpose of public consideration and comment, the ICG is wondering if there’s an opportunity to group the CWG-Transition proposed bylaw amendment text with the bylaw amendments anticipated by the CCWG-Accountability. A few specific questions: 1. At what stage in the work of the CCWG-Accountability will proposed bylaws amendment text be published for public comment? 2. Will the CCWG-Accountability develop specific text for the proposed bylaws amendments, or will that be conducted during a later implementation phase? 3. Should we consider batching all proposed bylaws changes into a single process, or conduct them separately? I welcome any further comment by Kavouss. Thanks and regards, Keith Drazek “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.” -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community From alissa at cooperw.in Fri Jun 19 19:40:37 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:40:37 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Chairs interaction with GNSO Message-ID: I meant to mention during our meeting that the chairs will be providing an ICG update to the GNSO during the GNSO meeting on Sunday at 10:30. We will leverage the action items, decisions taken, and speaking points from the F2F. Alissa From paf at frobbit.se Fri Jun 19 19:07:23 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 16:07:23 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face to Face meeting September Message-ID: <09076E30-7636-4017-B64A-C6A93A57C8E0@frobbit.se> All, The meeting in September will be September 18-19 in Los Angeles, USA. More details, like precise location, when we have it. Best, Patrik Fältström Co-Chair, ICG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Jun 19 21:56:57 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 07:56:57 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Combined proposal executive summary and public comment material In-Reply-To: <49AFD10A-2EC6-4AE7-9E11-AC575C9DB85F@cooperw.in> References: <49AFD10A-2EC6-4AE7-9E11-AC575C9DB85F@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Dear all, I couldn’t fully follow the discussion yesterday about this document. I could not hear well, but I’ve reviewed the transcript to try to understand the positions of ICG members. This is a useful start, but I’ve put some thought today into the overall structure which address some of the concerns i heard yesterday. I do think we should be clear on this structure and purpose before going too far into the content (although this first draft will be useful I’m sure). So here is a proposed structure, below, with a brief description of the purpose and content of each section. I think it may be easier to discuss this separately from proposed content; once agreed the content can start to be filled in. I hope this is useful. Paul ==== 1. Executive Summary This is a substantial summary of the proposal itself and the ICG assessment. Description of ICG’s own processes should be brief. No background material is included here, except by reference. 2. Development Process This is a full description of the ICG’s own process to develop the proposal. Community proposal processes not described here as they are covered in the next section. Should include very limited pre-ICG background material, except by reference. 3. Community Proposals Overview This section has 3 sub-sections, for Protocols, Numbers and Names. Each part gives a summary of the community proposal, with consistent structure of subsections: - Development process - List and brief functional description of main components of proposal - Summary of ICG evaluation 4. Integrated Transition Proposal This is the full substance of the proposal as an integration of community proposals. Individual detail sections will cover all of the proposal elements: - common elements including PTI, IANA Intellectual property, etc - major elements from individual proposals, with IGC’s own commentary on each 5. Integrated proposal assessment This is the substance of the proposal assessment by the ICG, including: - Interactions between community proposals - Assessment of NTIA Requirements - Accountability considerations? - Implementation considerations and timing 6. Conclusion and next steps This provides next steps with reference to NTIA assessment and implementation steps. Process issues e.g. regarding management/oversight of implementation. Recommendations from the ICG, if any. Should not cover process for comment on this document, because that is out of band. ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg On 18 Jun 2015, at 4:21, Alissa Cooper wrote: > Hi all, > > I’ve put together a skeleton of an executive summary for the > combined transition proposal. I put it into the combined proposal > document so folks can see it in context. Essentially all of the words > in the executive summary are directly copied from existing documents > (NTIA announcement, ICANN site about the creation of the ICG, our > proposal finalization process), with some minor modifications for > style. Anything in angle brackets (< >) still needs to be filled in. > The summaries of the individual proposal components could be filled in > now. The other pieces can’t be filled in until we do our assessment > of the proposal. This has been shared with the small drafting team but > I wanted to get it out to the whole group since we will discuss it at > least a bit tomorrow. > > I’ve also started putting together an outline of the materials we > may need to have on our web site when we launch the public comment > process on the combined proposal. I’ve included that as well since > we’ve had the recent discussion on the mailing list and the last > call about some of this content. The attached version reflects some > comments from the drafting team (Milton in particular). In general > I’ve tried to follow the approach Daniel recommended: keep the > executive summary in the proposal document itself somewhat brief, and > put the extra background material that public commenters may need on > the web site. I didn’t actually draft the background section yet > though — volunteer(s) to draft that would be great. The web site > document also contains an initial list of questions to the public, > drawn from our proposal assessment process and the NTIA criteria. > > We’ll have time for discussion of the direction of these at the F2F. > Secretariat: please add these documents to the Dropbox. > > Alissa > > > [combined-proposal-v1.doc] > > [public-comment-web-page-v1.docx] > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Sat Jun 20 18:58:02 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 20:58:02 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face to Face meeting September In-Reply-To: <09076E30-7636-4017-B64A-C6A93A57C8E0@frobbit.se> References: <09076E30-7636-4017-B64A-C6A93A57C8E0@frobbit.se> Message-ID: PATRIK Tks for the message. How ,when and Who has decided for the Venue. I have certain concerns about that . We need to open a doodle for that Regards Kavouss , 2015-06-19 21:07 GMT+02:00 Patrik Fältström : > All, > > The meeting in September will be September 18-19 in Los Angeles, USA. > > More details, like precise location, when we have it. > > Best, Patrik Fältström > Co-Chair, ICG > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From paf at frobbit.se Sat Jun 20 19:26:36 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 16:26:36 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face to Face meeting September In-Reply-To: References: <09076E30-7636-4017-B64A-C6A93A57C8E0@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <9AF14421-3539-4D15-A42E-537FEAFC3457@frobbit.se> On 20 Jun 2015, at 15:58, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: > PATRIK > Tks for the message. > How ,when and Who has decided for the Venue. > I have certain concerns about that . We need to open a doodle for that Regards The venue is selected based on a mix of logistics, availability of venue (at all), cost and specifically the requirements ICG have regarding interpretation. It is not so easy that we can choose a venue. Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Jun 21 12:00:17 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:00:17 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Chairs interaction with GNSO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <864E4221-0B9E-443F-ADFD-03BB6B4AAFD9@cooperw.in> Sharing the slides we will use during the GNSO meeting. Secretariat: please add these to the Dropbox. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-chairs-GNSO-ICANN53-v0.pptx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.presentationml.presentation Size: 161927 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- On Jun 19, 2015, at 4:40 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > I meant to mention during our meeting that the chairs will be providing an ICG update to the GNSO during the GNSO meeting on Sunday at 10:30. We will leverage the action items, decisions taken, and speaking points from the F2F. > > Alissa > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Sun Jun 21 12:38:47 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 09:38:47 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Face to Face meeting September In-Reply-To: <09076E30-7636-4017-B64A-C6A93A57C8E0@frobbit.se> References: <09076E30-7636-4017-B64A-C6A93A57C8E0@frobbit.se> Message-ID: <33903088-7F41-4511-A56D-94C726769003@cooperw.in> For those who require visas to travel to the US, please apply as soon as you can. Jennifer can assist as necessary, feel free to reach out to her if you need assistance. Alissa On Jun 19, 2015, at 4:07 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote: > All, > > The meeting in September will be September 18-19 in Los Angeles, USA. > > More details, like precise location, when we have it. > > Best, Patrik Fältström > Co-Chair, ICG > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Sun Jun 21 14:52:45 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 11:52:45 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Chairs interaction with GNSO In-Reply-To: <864E4221-0B9E-443F-ADFD-03BB6B4AAFD9@cooperw.in> References: <864E4221-0B9E-443F-ADFD-03BB6B4AAFD9@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <005d01d0ac31$f0c3c080$d24b4180$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The slide deck is on Dropbox here : http://bit.ly/1Lsktng (pdf format) in the newly created 'Slides' subfolder. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 9:00 AM To: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Chairs interaction with GNSO Sharing the slides we will use during the GNSO meeting. Secretariat: please add these to the Dropbox. From jen at icgsec.asia Sun Jun 21 15:01:49 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 12:01:49 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Video comment on the progress during ICG Face-to-Face Meeting 5 in Buenos Aires Message-ID: <005e01d0ac33$34e0ed50$9ea2c7f0$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please see the short video of Alissa commenting on the progress during ICG Face-to-Face meeting 5 in Buenos Aires: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1mHgtMRMe0 This has been posted to the ICG social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Sun Jun 21 16:48:28 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2015 16:48:28 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Chairs interaction with GNSO In-Reply-To: <864E4221-0B9E-443F-ADFD-03BB6B4AAFD9@cooperw.in> References: <864E4221-0B9E-443F-ADFD-03BB6B4AAFD9@cooperw.in> Message-ID: Many thanks Alissa .. Allow me to also share the talking points I followed at the GAC early morning session today, when GAC ICG members were asked to give a concise brief on the ICG progress .. Apologies for not being able to share this in advance of the session as it all took place last minute and for overlooking to mention the 'communication volunteer group' despite having it on my notes below !! Worth noting that valuable additions have been contributed by Mr. Arasteh afterwards .. Kind Regards --Manal * The ICG's mandate is to assemble a combined proposal from the operational community proposals on IANA Transition, that satisfies NTIA criteria and enjoys broad community consensus * The ICG issued an RFP outlining topics that should be addressed by the individual community proposals, namely the IETF, RIRs & the Names communities, * The ICG has received proposals from the IETF (6th Jan) and the RIRs (15th Jan) and expects to receive the Names proposal after being signed off by the chartering organizations by the end of this week (on the 25th of June) * The ICG has already started evaluating the 2 proposals received; individually in terms openness and inclusiveness of the process as well as clarity and completeness of the proposal and how each one meets the NTIA criteria; * The ICG has evaluated both proposals together, identified the IANA trademark and domain name to be an area of incompatibility, asked the RIR and IETF communities if their proposals can be made compatible, and received an affirmative response * The ICG is currently discussing IANA trademark and domain name issues with CWG and has sent a request to the CWG to get the incompatibilities between its draft text and the proposals of the other two communities reconciled (by July 2) * The ICG and the CCWG-Accountability each received an inquiry from NTIA regarding estimated timelines for proposal completion, including implementation and requesting a reply by end of June. In that respect: o The ICG is gathering input from the OCs about how much time they believe will need to complete developing their proposals and implementing aspects needed prior to NTIA contract expiration (by June 9 at 23:59 UTC) o The ICG, through its liaisons, has requested feedback from the CCWG-Accountability on timing and procedure for finalizing proposed bylaws changes as the CWG-IANA Transition has identified the need for a fundamental bylaw amendment in order to secure the PTI structure * At its meeting here in BA, the ICG has agreed to have a: o Volunteer group to complete individual assessment of the Names proposal by 7 July, in time for discussion on the ICG call on 8 July, o Volunteer group to complete individual assessment of the combined proposal by 14 July, in time for discussion on the ICG call on 15 July, o Volunteer group to look at formulating public comment questions and to draft some sort of preface/introduction/executive summary for the combined proposal (still under discussion within the ICG) o Volunteer group to continue to flag issues in CCWG-Accountability that may impact the CWG-IANA proposal, ICG's assessment process, and ultimately the final combined proposal. Once the CCWG Workstream 1 output has been sent to SOs/ACs for approval, the ICG will seek confirmation from the CWG that the CCWG's work meets its requirements o Volunteer communications group to reach out to the community and keep them posted and involved throughout the rest of the process * Several conference calls has been scheduled immediately after BA meeting as well as a face to face meeting in September * Target is to put the final proposal for public comment prior to Dublin meeting and finalize it there, where the ICG intends to submit the 3 OC proposals as received accompanied by an executive summary by the ICG -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2015 2:00 PM To: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Chairs interaction with GNSO Sharing the slides we will use during the GNSO meeting. Secretariat: please add these to the Dropbox. From yannis at icgsec.asia Mon Jun 22 11:59:32 2015 From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:59:32 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Meeting 5: Chat Transcript and Attendance List Message-ID: <637BFE8E-03E3-409B-B27A-6092FD1427CC@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, Please find attached the chat transcript for both Day 1 and Day 2 of ICG Meeting 5 and the respective attendance lists. Day 1 (18 Jun) ICG Members Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) James Bladel (GNSO) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Manal Ismail (GAC) Michael Niebel (GAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison) Apologies Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) ======= Day 2 ICG Members Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Michael Niebel (GAC) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Paul Wilson (NRO) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Liaisons Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison) Apologies James Bladel (GNSO) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Best Regards, Yannis Li ICG Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG F2F Meeting 5-Day 1-Chat Transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 129255 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG F2F Meeting 5-Day 2-Chat Transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 81872 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Mon Jun 22 13:56:48 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:56:48 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support Message-ID: <009901d0acf3$4a2cba20$de862e60$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG Members, ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday 18 - Saturday 19 September 2015. In accordance with ICANN's travel support guidelines and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (17-20 September) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. We invite you please to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin at icgsec.asia by Friday 3 July 2015. In reference to Alissa's earlier email, please also let the Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa processing. Thanks, Best regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Mon Jun 22 15:51:34 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 12:51:34 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] updated response to Larry Message-ID: <59E23CCB-DA4F-4498-A689-7D31E2C00202@cooperw.in> Still waiting on the CCWG response, but I tried to update this in light of Larry’s comments yesterday and Fadi’s presentation this morning. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NTIA-letter-response-v1.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 124018 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TimelineGraphic-v11.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 35837 bytes Desc: not available URL: From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Jun 22 16:37:13 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 18:37:13 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling In-Reply-To: <5584419B.1060801@oracle.com> References: <55842ABE.9060505@ripe.net> <5584419B.1060801@oracle.com> Message-ID: <558839B9.1020609@ripe.net> Joe, i do not understand what you are saying. Is this in reference to the changes I proposed for the final paragraph or to the whole draft? What exactly is your point? Daniel On 19.06.15 18:21 , joseph alhadeff wrote: > I would think perhaps a bit more flesh on the bones and a slightly > different track; my concern with Daniel's approach was that it provides > the impression that a reason reason for parallel implementation by the > communities is to meet our time frame, when we are developing a time > frame based on their possibility.. > > The role of the ICG in coordination is highly dependent on the ability > of the communities to provide us with the inputs that are the subject of > coordination. Once we have the proposals from the communities (we still > await one) in stable form, we anticipate that our process could be > accomplished in three to four months, with some possible slippage due to > the need for further public comment should substantial changes to the > initial combined proposal be needed after a first round of comments. We > are also mindful of some possible dependencies between the names > proposal and the other accountability work-stream which may also impact > timing. > > In relation to the implementation of the proposal, the communities have > brought to our attention that some elements of implementation may be > dependent on other actions while other elements may be run in parallel. > We have discussed and are inclined to have the communities provider > better inputs to us on the sequence of steps and potential for an "as > ready" for implementation model (enabling a phased implementation) once > the proposal has been endorsed. Our collecting this information will > not only assist in allowing everyone to better understand the > time-frames of implementation, but will also help assure coordination > across communities regarding the ordering and execution of > implementation steps as appropriate. > > On 6/19/2015 10:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: >> "Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take >> place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the >> IANA department in some way, and will therefore require time and >> attention from the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this >> can be done in parallell with other activities, and will not take longer >> time than other activities." >> >> To make my suggestions concrete and succumb again to the temptation of >> drafting in committee: >> >> "Many of the implementation steps across the three operational >> communities need to take place in parallel in order to realise the time >> line we have outlined in this response. We have received signals that >> ICANN staff resources may become critical if this parallelism is not >> realised. It is therefore important that all parties are not blocked or >> perceive to be prevented from taking all steps that can be taken before >> NTIA withdraws. We therefore ask you to clarify that it is acceptable to >> you to make all preparations that do not directly affect the agreement >> you have with ICANN." >> >> >> >> On 19.06.15 14:30 , Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Thanks for the good thinking and initial drafting that went into this. >>> >>> My view is that Alternative 2 (explicitly tie the timeframe to the >>> CCWG work and coordinate a response) is the better option. >>> As you note, the response you have drafted seems to align more with >>> Alternative 1. But a lot of the material in there can be (re)used as >>> we prepare a response based on Alternative 2. I doubt whether CCWG >>> chairs have taken the more global view of the timeline that we have >>> put together, so the draft will come in handy as we move forward >>> >>> --MM >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>>> Patrik Fältström >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:24 PM >>>> To: ICG >>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Alissa and myself spent some time starting to write a response to >>>> the inquiry >>>> from Strickling. You can see the initial draft below. When >>>> discussing the >>>> content we did though detect a few things which we do believe can >>>> change >>>> the response. Let me take them in random order. >>>> >>>> A. The question was related to when transition can happen, and that >>>> is not >>>> before a complete proposal has not only been submitted to NTIA, but >>>> also >>>> been implemented. >>>> >>>> B. The longest timeframe we have got is 3-4 months, but on top of >>>> this is an >>>> unknown quantity of time needed for various steps in the US Government >>>> for evaluation and final transition. If the last (unknown) steps >>>> takes say 3-4 >>>> months as well, we talk about a 6-8 month timeframe. >>>> >>>> C. The timeline of CCWG Accountability is to be discussed Friday (i.e. >>>> tomorrow). The timeline indications we have seen talk about >>>> June-July 2016, >>>> and one can ask whether any of the OC proposals can be claimed to be >>>> implemented before CCWG Accountability is done. >>>> >>>> D. In reality, the question is not about detailed timeline, but >>>> rather in a >>>> broad view how long time is needed. And given the unknowns it is >>>> probably >>>> difficult to make estimations in shorter time units than 3 months, >>>> or maybe >>>> 6 month units. >>>> >>>> Based on the above, that we have got responses that required >>>> implementation steps in the proposals from the operational communities >>>> can be done within 3-4 months, that the CCWG Accountability have a >>>> timeline that indicate June-July 2016 (which is further away in >>>> time) we draw >>>> the conclusion that the CCWG Accountability is what will set the >>>> timeline, >>>> and because of that ICG have two alternatives: >>>> >>>> 1. To state we do believe ICG proposal can be implemented in 3-4 months >>>> plus time it takes for US Government (which if that also takes 3-4 >>>> months >>>> lead to 6-8 month timeframe). >>>> >>>> 2. Given the data we have, that CCWG is driving the timeline, we >>>> coordinate >>>> with CCWG Accountability and even though one letter was sent to ICG >>>> Chairs and one to CCWG Chairs, we send in one response, which is built >>>> upon mainly the timeline CCWG Accountability will discuss tomorrow, and >>>> we use the data ICG have received as indications that ICG will be >>>> faster than >>>> CCWG regarding implementation. >>>> >>>> When we stopped working today, Alissa and I where leaning towards >>>> alternative (2), although we (as you can see below) started writing on >>>> something according to alternative (1). >>>> >>>> Please advice. >>>> >>>> Patrik & Alissa >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lawrence E. Strickling >>>> Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information United States >>>> Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling: >>>> >>>> Thank you for your letter concerning the IANA stewardship >>>> transition. As >>>> noted in your letter, there are multiple steps remaining before the >>>> transition >>>> will be complete: the finalization of the transition proposal, the U.S. >>>> Government’s evaluation of the proposal, and the implementation of the >>>> work items identified by the communities as prerequisites for the >>>> transition. >>>> This letter provides input about the first and last of these steps. >>>> >>>> The ICG received and assessed the proposals from the number >>>> resources and >>>> protocol parameters communities earlier this year. We have just >>>> received >>>> the domain names proposal from the CWG. The finalization steps that >>>> remain include the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, the >>>> ICG’s assessment of the combined proposal containing all three >>>> components, solicitation and analysis of public comments, and possibly >>>> further work in the operational communities depending on the results >>>> of the >>>> assessments and public comment analysis. These steps are detailed in >>>> the >>>> attached timeline. The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be >>>> concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to the >>>> ICANN >>>> Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in October. >>>> >>>> The ICG considers the attached timeline to be optimistic. The >>>> timeline may >>>> be extended if additional time is needed for community work or public >>>> comment analysis, or if the ICG determines that an additional public >>>> comment period is necessary. >>>> >>>> We inquired with the operational communities and the ICANN Board >>>> concerning implementation time frames. Links to their responses are >>>> included at the end of this letter. Taken together, the responses >>>> indicate >>>> that the longest implementation step that can be estimated at this time >>>> relates to the creation of the PTI, which may require 3-4 months. >>>> Many of >>>> the implementation steps across the three communities can take place in >>>> parallel and may be prepared before the transition is complete, >>>> while for >>>> other steps it is not possible to estimate the time necessary at >>>> present. >>>> Given these factors, we believe that at a minimum 3-4 months will be >>>> required to complete the transition after the proposal is approved >>>> by the >>>> U.S. government. >>>> >>>> The IETF community has indicated that it is prepared to transition >>>> now. It is >>>> possible that as further details concerning Post-Transition IANA >>>> (PTI) become >>>> available, more IETF community work and agreement may be required. >>>> >>>> The CRISP team and the RIRs indicated that the numbers community >>>> will be >>>> prepared to transition by September 30, 2015. Some elements >>>> described in >>>> the numbers community proposal, such as appointees to the Review >>>> Committee, may not be finalized by that time, but these are not >>>> considered >>>> prerequisites for the transition. >>>> >>>> The CWG indicated that the work necessary to incorporate the PTI may >>>> require 3-4 months depending on complexity and need for multiple >>>> iterations of relevant documentation. The time needed to implement >>>> other >>>> aspects of the CWG proposal, including relevant ICANN bylaws >>>> changes, is >>>> uncertain. [Insert pointer to CCWG response to NTIA here?] >>>> >>>> The ICANN Board's views concerning implementation time frames are >>>> consistent with these indications from the operational communities. The >>>> Board believes the IETF and RIR proposals could be implemented in a >>>> matter >>>> several of weeks, that the PTI implementation may take several >>>> months, and >>>> that the time required to implement the CCWG Accountability work >>>> items is >>>> uncertain. >>>> >>>> Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take >>>> place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact >>>> the IANA >>>> department in some way, and will therefore require time and >>>> attention from >>>> the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this can be >>>> done in >>>> parallell with other activities, and will not take longer time than >>>> other >>>> activities. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Tue Jun 23 01:31:22 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 03:31:22 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from Strickling In-Reply-To: <558839B9.1020609@ripe.net> References: <55842ABE.9060505@ripe.net> <5584419B.1060801@oracle.com> <558839B9.1020609@ripe.net> Message-ID: Alissa,Patrik Once this draft is finalized, it is better to be coordinated wiuth co-chairs of CCWG with a view that the timeline be consistent with what they would in clude in their reply It would inappropriate if NTIA receive two responses from ICG and CCWG which are inconsistent Regards Kavouss 2015-06-22 18:37 GMT+02:00 Daniel Karrenberg : > Joe, > > i do not understand what you are saying. Is this in reference to the > changes I proposed for the final paragraph or to the whole draft? > What exactly is your point? > > Daniel > > > On 19.06.15 18:21 , joseph alhadeff wrote: > > I would think perhaps a bit more flesh on the bones and a slightly > > different track; my concern with Daniel's approach was that it provides > > the impression that a reason reason for parallel implementation by the > > communities is to meet our time frame, when we are developing a time > > frame based on their possibility.. > > > > The role of the ICG in coordination is highly dependent on the ability > > of the communities to provide us with the inputs that are the subject of > > coordination. Once we have the proposals from the communities (we still > > await one) in stable form, we anticipate that our process could be > > accomplished in three to four months, with some possible slippage due to > > the need for further public comment should substantial changes to the > > initial combined proposal be needed after a first round of comments. We > > are also mindful of some possible dependencies between the names > > proposal and the other accountability work-stream which may also impact > > timing. > > > > In relation to the implementation of the proposal, the communities have > > brought to our attention that some elements of implementation may be > > dependent on other actions while other elements may be run in parallel. > > We have discussed and are inclined to have the communities provider > > better inputs to us on the sequence of steps and potential for an "as > > ready" for implementation model (enabling a phased implementation) once > > the proposal has been endorsed. Our collecting this information will > > not only assist in allowing everyone to better understand the > > time-frames of implementation, but will also help assure coordination > > across communities regarding the ordering and execution of > > implementation steps as appropriate. > > > > On 6/19/2015 10:44 AM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > >> "Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take > >> place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact the > >> IANA department in some way, and will therefore require time and > >> attention from the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this > >> can be done in parallell with other activities, and will not take longer > >> time than other activities." > >> > >> To make my suggestions concrete and succumb again to the temptation of > >> drafting in committee: > >> > >> "Many of the implementation steps across the three operational > >> communities need to take place in parallel in order to realise the time > >> line we have outlined in this response. We have received signals that > >> ICANN staff resources may become critical if this parallelism is not > >> realised. It is therefore important that all parties are not blocked or > >> perceive to be prevented from taking all steps that can be taken before > >> NTIA withdraws. We therefore ask you to clarify that it is acceptable to > >> you to make all preparations that do not directly affect the agreement > >> you have with ICANN." > >> > >> > >> > >> On 19.06.15 14:30 , Milton L Mueller wrote: > >>> Thanks for the good thinking and initial drafting that went into this. > >>> > >>> My view is that Alternative 2 (explicitly tie the timeframe to the > >>> CCWG work and coordinate a response) is the better option. > >>> As you note, the response you have drafted seems to align more with > >>> Alternative 1. But a lot of the material in there can be (re)used as > >>> we prepare a response based on Alternative 2. I doubt whether CCWG > >>> chairs have taken the more global view of the timeline that we have > >>> put together, so the draft will come in handy as we move forward > >>> > >>> --MM > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf > Of > >>>> Patrik Fältström > >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 8:24 PM > >>>> To: ICG > >>>> Subject: [Internal-cg] First stab at response to letter from > Strickling > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Alissa and myself spent some time starting to write a response to > >>>> the inquiry > >>>> from Strickling. You can see the initial draft below. When > >>>> discussing the > >>>> content we did though detect a few things which we do believe can > >>>> change > >>>> the response. Let me take them in random order. > >>>> > >>>> A. The question was related to when transition can happen, and that > >>>> is not > >>>> before a complete proposal has not only been submitted to NTIA, but > >>>> also > >>>> been implemented. > >>>> > >>>> B. The longest timeframe we have got is 3-4 months, but on top of > >>>> this is an > >>>> unknown quantity of time needed for various steps in the US Government > >>>> for evaluation and final transition. If the last (unknown) steps > >>>> takes say 3-4 > >>>> months as well, we talk about a 6-8 month timeframe. > >>>> > >>>> C. The timeline of CCWG Accountability is to be discussed Friday (i.e. > >>>> tomorrow). The timeline indications we have seen talk about > >>>> June-July 2016, > >>>> and one can ask whether any of the OC proposals can be claimed to be > >>>> implemented before CCWG Accountability is done. > >>>> > >>>> D. In reality, the question is not about detailed timeline, but > >>>> rather in a > >>>> broad view how long time is needed. And given the unknowns it is > >>>> probably > >>>> difficult to make estimations in shorter time units than 3 months, > >>>> or maybe > >>>> 6 month units. > >>>> > >>>> Based on the above, that we have got responses that required > >>>> implementation steps in the proposals from the operational communities > >>>> can be done within 3-4 months, that the CCWG Accountability have a > >>>> timeline that indicate June-July 2016 (which is further away in > >>>> time) we draw > >>>> the conclusion that the CCWG Accountability is what will set the > >>>> timeline, > >>>> and because of that ICG have two alternatives: > >>>> > >>>> 1. To state we do believe ICG proposal can be implemented in 3-4 > months > >>>> plus time it takes for US Government (which if that also takes 3-4 > >>>> months > >>>> lead to 6-8 month timeframe). > >>>> > >>>> 2. Given the data we have, that CCWG is driving the timeline, we > >>>> coordinate > >>>> with CCWG Accountability and even though one letter was sent to ICG > >>>> Chairs and one to CCWG Chairs, we send in one response, which is built > >>>> upon mainly the timeline CCWG Accountability will discuss tomorrow, > and > >>>> we use the data ICG have received as indications that ICG will be > >>>> faster than > >>>> CCWG regarding implementation. > >>>> > >>>> When we stopped working today, Alissa and I where leaning towards > >>>> alternative (2), although we (as you can see below) started writing on > >>>> something according to alternative (1). > >>>> > >>>> Please advice. > >>>> > >>>> Patrik & Alissa > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Lawrence E. Strickling > >>>> Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information United States > >>>> Department of Commerce Washington, DC 20230 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Dear Assistant Secretary Strickling: > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for your letter concerning the IANA stewardship > >>>> transition. As > >>>> noted in your letter, there are multiple steps remaining before the > >>>> transition > >>>> will be complete: the finalization of the transition proposal, the > U.S. > >>>> Government’s evaluation of the proposal, and the implementation of the > >>>> work items identified by the communities as prerequisites for the > >>>> transition. > >>>> This letter provides input about the first and last of these steps. > >>>> > >>>> The ICG received and assessed the proposals from the number > >>>> resources and > >>>> protocol parameters communities earlier this year. We have just > >>>> received > >>>> the domain names proposal from the CWG. The finalization steps that > >>>> remain include the ICG’s assessment of the domain names proposal, the > >>>> ICG’s assessment of the combined proposal containing all three > >>>> components, solicitation and analysis of public comments, and possibly > >>>> further work in the operational communities depending on the results > >>>> of the > >>>> assessments and public comment analysis. These steps are detailed in > >>>> the > >>>> attached timeline. The ICG estimates that all of these steps could be > >>>> concluded in time for the ICG to deliver the final proposal to the > >>>> ICANN > >>>> Board in the time frame of ICANN 54 in October. > >>>> > >>>> The ICG considers the attached timeline to be optimistic. The > >>>> timeline may > >>>> be extended if additional time is needed for community work or public > >>>> comment analysis, or if the ICG determines that an additional public > >>>> comment period is necessary. > >>>> > >>>> We inquired with the operational communities and the ICANN Board > >>>> concerning implementation time frames. Links to their responses are > >>>> included at the end of this letter. Taken together, the responses > >>>> indicate > >>>> that the longest implementation step that can be estimated at this > time > >>>> relates to the creation of the PTI, which may require 3-4 months. > >>>> Many of > >>>> the implementation steps across the three communities can take place > in > >>>> parallel and may be prepared before the transition is complete, > >>>> while for > >>>> other steps it is not possible to estimate the time necessary at > >>>> present. > >>>> Given these factors, we believe that at a minimum 3-4 months will be > >>>> required to complete the transition after the proposal is approved > >>>> by the > >>>> U.S. government. > >>>> > >>>> The IETF community has indicated that it is prepared to transition > >>>> now. It is > >>>> possible that as further details concerning Post-Transition IANA > >>>> (PTI) become > >>>> available, more IETF community work and agreement may be required. > >>>> > >>>> The CRISP team and the RIRs indicated that the numbers community > >>>> will be > >>>> prepared to transition by September 30, 2015. Some elements > >>>> described in > >>>> the numbers community proposal, such as appointees to the Review > >>>> Committee, may not be finalized by that time, but these are not > >>>> considered > >>>> prerequisites for the transition. > >>>> > >>>> The CWG indicated that the work necessary to incorporate the PTI may > >>>> require 3-4 months depending on complexity and need for multiple > >>>> iterations of relevant documentation. The time needed to implement > >>>> other > >>>> aspects of the CWG proposal, including relevant ICANN bylaws > >>>> changes, is > >>>> uncertain. [Insert pointer to CCWG response to NTIA here?] > >>>> > >>>> The ICANN Board's views concerning implementation time frames are > >>>> consistent with these indications from the operational communities. > The > >>>> Board believes the IETF and RIR proposals could be implemented in a > >>>> matter > >>>> several of weeks, that the PTI implementation may take several > >>>> months, and > >>>> that the time required to implement the CCWG Accountability work > >>>> items is > >>>> uncertain. > >>>> > >>>> Many of the implementation steps across the three communities can take > >>>> place in parallel. However, all of the implementation steps impact > >>>> the IANA > >>>> department in some way, and will therefore require time and > >>>> attention from > >>>> the small IANA staff. It is though our estimate that this can be > >>>> done in > >>>> parallell with other activities, and will not take longer time than > >>>> other > >>>> activities. > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Internal-cg mailing list > >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Internal-cg mailing list > >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Jun 23 18:57:26 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 15:57:26 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Relevant remarks and diagram Message-ID: <8A99D4DD-8E3F-44DC-9F61-C521DE90A71C@cooperw.in> While official transcripts are still in process, I wanted to share a portion of Larry Strickling’s remarks from Sunday night. These are relevant to us as we think about the public comment period, the front matter for the combined proposal, and the timeline. I’ve also included the timeline diagram Fadi presented on Monday morning. — From Larry Strickling’s remarks: THE SECOND MESSAGE I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH IS THE IMPORTANCE OF DELIVERING A PLAN TO US THAT HAS BEEN FULLY VALIDATED AND BY VALIDATION I MEAN THE FOLLOWING: HAS THE COMMUNITY BUILT A RECORD THAT SUPPORTS THE PLAN AND PROVIDES THE BASIS FOR ULTIMATE ACCEPTANCE OF IT? FOR EXAMPLE, THE RECORD NEEDS TO CLEARLY AND CONVINCINGLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PLAN SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS. THAT SHOULD GO WITHOUT SAYING. BUT THE RECORD ALSO NEEDS TO REFLECT THAT THE COMMUNITY FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE IMPLICATIONS OF ITS PROPOSAL. EVERY CHANGE IN THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OR PRACTICES LIKELY WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES, SOME OF WHICH WILL BE UNINTENDED AND WE WILL BE LOOKING TO SEE HOW THE COMMUNITY HAS DONE IN IDENTIFYING AND MITIGATING ALL OF THESE CONSEQUENCES IN ITS PLANNING. THE RECORD SHOULD ALSO REFLECT THAT THE COMMUNITY CONSIDERED AL TTERNTIVES AND THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO DOCUMENT THE JUDGMENTS AND THE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORT THE ONGS THAT IS BEING PUT FORWARD OVER THE OTHERS THAT WERE CONSIDERED. THE RECORD AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE NEEDS TO ANTICIPATE AND ANSWER ANY QUESTION ANYONE MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE PLAN. HERE ARE THE STRESS TESTING PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE. BUT THIS IS AN ISSUE NOT JUST LIMITED TO JUSTIFYING THE PLAN, IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMUNITY ADDRESS AND ANSWER AS MANY ISSUES AS POSSIBLE NOW AND NOT LEAVE THEM FORFURTHER DISCUSSION AND DECISION. IT WILL BE HARD FOR US TO CERTIFY A PLAN THAT LEAVES TOO MANY ISSUES OPEN FOR FURTHER WORK. ALSO IF THE PLAN IS RELYING ON IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING MECHANISMS, THE RECORD NEEDS TO REFLECT THAT THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THE CURRENT PROCESSES AND THAT ITS PROPOSED REMEDY TO IMPROVE THOSE WILL FIX THE PROBLEMS. AN EXAMPLE OF THIS THAT I POINTED OUT IN MY BLOG IS THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW PANEL. PUTTING FAITH IN THREE OR FIVE OR WHATEVER INDIVIDUALS TO REPLACE THE JUDGMENT OF AN ELECTED BOARD POTENTIALLY PROVIDES LET'S ACCOUNTABILITY FORTHE COMMUNITY AND MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY'S WILL TO BE THWARTED AND IT MAY ALSO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN AGGRIEVED INDIVIDUAL TO OVERTURN A MULTISTAKEHOLDER CONSENSUS BY PURSUING HIS OR HER PAROCHIAL INTEREST. SO IF THE COMMUNITY SERIOUSLY WANTS TO RELY ON THIS MECHANISM, IT NEEDS TO ANSWER THE CRITICISMS OF THE CURRENT PROCESS THAT EXISTS TODAY. IN ALL OF THESE FACTORS SHOULD DRIVE THE COMMUNITY TO CONCLUDE ON A PROPOSAL THAT IS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE BUT STILL MEETS THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS AND MEETS OUR CRITERIA. BUT IF A PLAN IS TOO COMPLEX IT INCREASES THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THERE WILL BE ISSUES THAT EMERGE LATER. IT INCREASES THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE COMMUNITY WILL BE UNABLE TO IDENTIFY AND MITIGATE ALL OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLAN. AND A MORE COMPLEX PLAN ALMOST CERTAINLY WILL TAKE LONGER TO IMPLEMENT. WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE ISSUE OF TIMING AND THE SCHEDULE FOR THE COMPLETING -- COMPLETION OF THE TRANSITION. EVERYONE HERE LIKELY KNOW THAT IS THE CURRENT IANA CONTRACT EXPIRES ON SEPTEMBER 30th. AND EVERYONE HERE CAN LIKELY SURMISE THAT THE TRANSITION PLANNING, INCLUDING IMPLEMENTATION, IS NOT GOING TO BE DONE BY THAT DATE. SO WE'RE FACED WITH THE ISSUE OF HOW LONG TO EXTENT THE CONTRACT. TODAY WE CAN EXERCISE AN ONGS TO EXTEND TO CONTRACT TWO YEARS, TO SEPTEMBER 2017. I OF COURSE AM CONCERNED THAT IF WE SIMPLY EXTEND THE CONTRACT TWO YEARS, IT WILL SEND A SIGNAL TO THE COMMUNITY THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO WORK AS HARD TO GET THE PLAN, OR WORSE, IT MIGHT BE MISINTERPRETED AS A LESSENING OF UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SUPPORT TO COMPLETE THE TRANSITION. SO SEVERAL WEEKS AGO I ASKED THE COMMUNITY LEADERS OF THE ICG AND THE CCWG TO PROVIDE ME WITH AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE TRANSITION PLANNING AND THEIR VIEWS AS TO HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO FINALIZE THE PLAN AND IMPLEMENT IT, ONCE IT IS APPROVED. WE HOPE TO GET RESPONSES FROM THE COMMUNITY SHORTLY AFTER THE MEETINGS HERE ARE CONCLUDED THIS WEEK, AND WE ARE ASSUMING THE COMMUNITY WILL ADVISE US THAT THE WORK WILL TAKE LESS THAN TWO YEARS. AND ASSUMING THAT'S THE CASE, WE WILL SIT DOWN WITH ICANN TO NEGOTIATE AN EXTENSION OF THE CONTRACT IN LINE WITH THE COMMUNITY'S WISHES. NOW, ONE FACTOR IN THIS TIMING IS HOW LONG WE WILL TAKE IN THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO REVIEW AND EVALUATE THE PLAN. AND SOME OF YOU ARE AWARE OF THE ACTION OUR CONGRESS IS CONSIDERING TAKING THAT MAY AFFECT THE LENGTH OF REVIEW BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. SO LET ME FILL YOU IN ON THE STATUS OF THAT LEGISLATION. NOW, OUR CONGRESS HAS BEEN INTERESTED IN THE IANA TRANSITION SINCE WE ANNOUNCED IT BACK IN MARCH OF 2014. THREE DIFFERENT COMMITTEES HAVE ALSO HELD AT LEAST FIVE HEARINGS AND FADI AND I WILL BE TESTIFYING AT A SIXTH HEARING AS SOON AS WE GET BACK FROM BUENOS AIRES IN EARLY CONGRESSIONAL STAFF ATTENDED THE MEETING IN LOS ANGELES AND SEVERAL WILL BE HERE THIS WEEK ATTENDING THE MEETING IN ARGENTINA. NOW BOTH HOUSES OF OUR CONGRESS ARE CURRENTLY CONSIDERING LEGISLATION WILL IMPACT THE P TRANSITION AND IN PARTICULAR THE TIMING OF IT. THIS LEGISLATION WOULD REQUIRE NTIA AFTER WE RECEIVE THE PLAN TO CERTIFY TO CONGRESS THAT THE PLAN SATISFIES OUR CONDITIONS AND THAT THE COMMUNITY THAT THE BOARD HAS ADOPTED ALL NECESSARY BYLAW CHANGES TO SUPPORT THAT PLAN. AND ONCE WE DO THAT, CONGRESS WILL THEN HAVE 30 LEGISLATIVE DAYS. AND WE NEED TO BE CLEAR ON THIS. THESE AREN'T CALENDAR DAYS, THEY AREN'T BUSINESS DAYS. THEY ARE THE DAYS CONGRESS IS IN SESSION TO REVIEW OUR REPORT AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT WANTS TO TAKE ANY ACTION. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO ACT. SO THAT ONCE THE 30 DAYS ARE UP, ICANN AND THE COMMUNITY WILL BE FREE TO COMPLETE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN UNLESS CONGRESS DOES ACT IN THAT PERIOD. AND THEN ONCE THE IMPLEMENTATION IS COMPLETE, NTIA AND ICANN COULD THEN END THE IANA FUNCTIONS CONTRACT. NOW, THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THIS IS THE DEBATE IN WASHINGTON IS SHIFTING AWAY FROM THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRANSITION SHOULD HAPPEN AT ALL TO MAKING SURE THAT IT HAPPENS IN A RESPONSIBLE MANNER. BUT OBVIOUSLY THIS BILL, IF IT IS ENACTED INTO LAW, WILL ADD ABOUT TWO MONTHS TO THE TOTAL TIME OF U.S. GOVERNMENT REVIEW, WHICH ADDED TO OU REVIEW, WE NOW ESTIMATE TO BE ROUGHLY FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS DEPENDING ON WHEN WE RECEIVE THE PROPOSAL. SO ANOTHER CRITICAL-PATH ELEMENT THAT EMERGES FROM THIS LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE IS THE NEED TO WORK OUT THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE MUCH BYLAW CHANGES AS PUBLICLY -- AS QUICKLY AND AS PUBLICLY AS POSSIBLE. WE WANT TO AVOID A LENGTHY DELAY AFTER WE GET THE PLAN WHILE LANGUAGE IS BEING WRITTEN AND REVIEWED BY THE COMMUNITY AS THAT WILL DELAY WHEN WE CAN CERTIFY TO CONGRESS THAT THE PLAN AND THE PROPOSAL SATISFIES OUR CONDITIONS. SO I WAS VERY GLAD TO HEAR THIS ISSUE BEING DISCUSSED THIS AFTERNOON BETWEEN THE CCWG AND THE BOARD, AND IT DOES SOUND LIKE THE BOARD WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO RESOLVE BYLAW TEXT AS PROMPTLY AS THE OVERALL PLANNING WILL ALLOW. SO TO WRAP UP THIS CONTRACT DISCUSSION, THE EXTENSION DISCUSSION, THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO DETERMINE AND TELL US WHEN IT IS LIKELY TO COMPLETE THE PLAN, ADD FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS FOR OUR REVIEW, AND THEN FACTOR IN TIME TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION ONCE WE ARE PAST THE CONGRESSIONAL WAITING PERIOD. HERE AGAIN, IT SHOULD GO WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE SIMPLER THE PLAN, THE SIMPLER THE IMPLEMENTATION, THE QUICKER THE IMPLEMENTATION CAN BE WHICH WILL THEN ALLOW US TO PROCEED TO A PROMPT CONCLUSION TO THE IANA FUNCTIONS CONTRACT. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Crossing the Finish Line Together[2].pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 945398 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 24 17:50:20 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:50:20 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal Message-ID: To keep you updated: the CWG proposal has just unanimously been approved by the GNSO (through its council) which is one of the chartering organizations. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Wed Jun 24 18:25:12 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:25:12 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for tomorrow Message-ID: The agenda for tomorrow is below. We will start 45 minutes later than planned, at 9:45. Our session clashes with a CWG working session (8:30-10:00) and a CCWG working session (10:15-11:45). Please attend as much of our session as you can. 9:45-10:05 Thoughts from the ICANN week (Patrik) 10:05-10:25 Report from the communications working group (Jean-Jacques) 10:25-10:45 Response to NTIA letter (Alissa) 10:45-11:15 Future call and meeting schedule (Patrik) 11:15-11:45 Break 11:45-12:45 Executive summary/introduction/public comment web site (Alissa) 12:45-13:00 Wrap up From paf at frobbit.se Wed Jun 24 18:28:33 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:28:33 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <82CAB6C3-2207-40C4-A624-C85F0AC53CE0@frobbit.se> On 24 Jun 2015, at 14:50, WUKnoben wrote: > To keep you updated: > > the CWG proposal has just unanimously been approved by the GNSO (through its council) which is one of the chartering organizations. Excellent! Patrik -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Wed Jun 24 18:37:59 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:37:59 -0300 (GMT-03:00) Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <18951035.335.1435171079054.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> I'll attend. Where? Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Mercredi 24 Juin 2015 15:25:12 Objet: [Internal-cg] Agenda for tomorrow The agenda for tomorrow is below. We will start 45 minutes later than planned, at 9:45. Our session clashes with a CWG working session (8:30-10:00) and a CCWG working session (10:15-11:45). Please attend as much of our session as you can. 9:45-10:05 Thoughts from the ICANN week (Patrik) 10:05-10:25 Report from the communications working group (Jean-Jacques) 10:25-10:45 Response to NTIA letter (Alissa) 10:45-11:15 Future call and meeting schedule (Patrik) 11:15-11:45 Break 11:45-12:45 Executive summary/introduction/public comment web site (Alissa) 12:45-13:00 Wrap up _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From paf at frobbit.se Wed Jun 24 18:40:51 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:40:51 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Fwd: [ssac] CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval References: <5B0C704C-BCD3-42CE-B772-161C8688AE02@netnod.se> Message-ID: <58E35480-5981-4C4A-B8DC-7E372637CC49@frobbit.se> FYI: SSAC approve CWG proposal with comments. Patrik Forwarded message: > From: Patrik Fältström > To: Jonathan Robinson , Lise Fuhr > Cc: SSAC , Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch, Bart Boswinkel , Bernard Turcotte , Byron Holland , Marika Konings , Grace Abuhamad , Alan Greenberg , Theresa Swinehart > Subject: Re: [ssac] CWG-Stewardship Response for Chartering Organization Consideration and Approval > Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:38:37 -0300 > > Lise, Jonathan, > > As chair of the SSAC I have the privilege to deliver SAC-072 to you which is the response from SSAC on this question. > > In short (excerpt from SAC-072 executive summary, full text is in the document): > > The SSAC finds that the recommendations in SAC 069 are satisfied by the CWG proposal. > > The SSAC therefore: > > 1. Thanks the CWG for its hard work on developing its proposal for consideration by the chartering organizations; > > 2. Wishes to continue to participate in the dialogue until the CWG work officially concludes; > > 3. Approves the CWG Proposal (11 June 2015 version), with comments. > > 4. Understands that the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal is dependent on the ICANN-level accountability mechanisms being developed by the CCWG- Accountability (Work Stream 1). > > 5. Welcomes and will consider the CWG’s invitation to SSAC to participate in the proposed post-transition IANA structures. > > Patrik Fältström > SSAC Chair > > On 11 Jun 2015, at 11:53, Grace Abuhamad wrote: > >> Sent on behalf of CWG-Stewardship Chairs by support staff. >> >> To: CWG-Stewardship Chartering SOs and ACs >> The ALAC, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, and SSAC >> >> Dear SO and AC Chairs, >> CWG-Stewardship proposed response to the ICG RFP the IANA Stewardship Transition >> The Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) is pleased to provide its Chartering Organizations with its proposed response to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals on the IANA Stewardship Transition for your consideration and approval as per its Charter. >> The response is the result of extensive work by the CWG¹s 19 members, 133 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors over the past year, which included over 100 calls or meetings, 2 public consultations and more than 4,000 email messages. It represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice, and significant compromises by all who participated and includes diligent attention to the input received through the Public Comment proceedings. The final proposal has received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship with no objections or minority statements recorded for Chartering Organization consideration. >> As noted in the CWG-Stewardship proposal itself, the proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms proposed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability recommendations, if implemented as expected, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this proposal will require revision. >> We also note that there are certain implementation elements that will require further dialogue in the near future, including with the other operational communities, and these have been marked as such in the final proposal. Two specific issues are particularly important to highlight. One is the finalization of the service level expectations (SLEs), where the proposal includes a set of agreed principles between the CWG and IANA, but these remain to be finalized in the form of a mutually agreed set of SLEs. A detailed plan for this finalisation is being worked on and it is our view that this detail, whilst vitally important, does not impact on the substance of the proposal put to you for approval. The second issue entails the location of intellectual property rights and this needs further discussion with the other respondents to the ICG RFP and ICANN. >> As per the CWG-Stewardship¹s Charter we now seek your approval to submit this final proposal to the ICG and ask you to consider this approval in accordance with your respective SO or AC rules and procedures by 25 June 2015 to meet the overall timing requirements which would allow the transition to proceed, noting that final approval is conditional on the approval of the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 recommendations. >> >> >> >> We will make ourselves, together with or other key contributors, available to you at the ICANN 53 meeting in Buenos Aires in order to answer any questions you may have and to explain any details of the proposal. For your information, further background documents as well as the slides, recordings and transcripts of recent webinars explain the details of the final proposal are available here: https://community.icann.org/x/sJc0Aw >> . >> >> >> >> Should you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact us. >> >> >> >> >> >> Lise Fuhr & Jonathan Robinson >> >> Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [FinalTransitionProposal_11June.docx] > > Patrik Fältström > Head of Research and Development > Netnod > > _______________________________________________ > SSAC mailing list > SSAC at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ssac > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SAC072 SSAC Comment on the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions Proposal.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 360851 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Wed Jun 24 18:58:05 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 15:58:05 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Agenda for tomorrow In-Reply-To: <18951035.335.1435171079054.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <18951035.335.1435171079054.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <006001d0aeaf$b662ea30$2328be90$@icgsec.asia> Dear Jean-Jacques and All, Please see the details for the ICG wrap-up meeting below: Date: Thursday 25 June Time: 09:45-13:00 ART / 12:45-16:00 UTC (time conversion here: http://bit.ly/1RwS29t ) Location: Retiro C Remote participation: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/eze53-retiroc I'll send the calendar invite updates very shortly with the agenda and revised time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 3:38 PM To: Alissa Cooper Cc: ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] Agenda for tomorrow I'll attend. Where? Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "ICG" Envoyé: Mercredi 24 Juin 2015 15:25:12 Objet: [Internal-cg] Agenda for tomorrow The agenda for tomorrow is below. We will start 45 minutes later than planned, at 9:45. Our session clashes with a CWG working session (8:30-10:00) and a CCWG working session (10:15-11:45). Please attend as much of our session as you can. 9:45-10:05 Thoughts from the ICANN week (Patrik) 10:05-10:25 Report from the communications working group (Jean-Jacques) 10:25-10:45 Response to NTIA letter (Alissa) 10:45-11:15 Future call and meeting schedule (Patrik) 11:15-11:45 Break 11:45-12:45 Executive summary/introduction/public comment web site (Alissa) 12:45-13:00 Wrap up _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From keith at internetnz.net.nz Wed Jun 24 19:07:40 2015 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:07:40 +1200 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <558AFFFC.9060901@internetnz.net.nz> And the ccNSO members indicated unanimous support as a guide for the ccNSO Council vote which will happen later this afternoon... Cheers Keith On 25/06/2015 5:50 a.m., WUKnoben wrote: > To keep you updated: > > the CWG proposal has just unanimously been approved by the GNSO (through > its council) which is one of the chartering organizations. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From manal at tra.gov.eg Wed Jun 24 19:26:11 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:26:11 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal In-Reply-To: <558AFFFC.9060901@internetnz.net.nz> References: <558AFFFC.9060901@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: And attached is the GAC chair letter to the CWG-Stewardship co-chairs .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Keith Davidson Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:08 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal And the ccNSO members indicated unanimous support as a guide for the ccNSO Council vote which will happen later this afternoon... Cheers Keith On 25/06/2015 5:50 a.m., WUKnoben wrote: > To keep you updated: > > the CWG proposal has just unanimously been approved by the GNSO > (through its council) which is one of the chartering organizations. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAC Letter to CWG re Final ProposalFinal.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 199669 bytes Desc: GAC Letter to CWG re Final ProposalFinal.pdf URL: From mueller at syr.edu Wed Jun 24 19:28:54 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:28:54 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal Message-ID: <23dc4f0a54a248398f50cbeb5aa72cb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Wed Jun 24 19:47:24 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:47:24 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of the CWG Names Proposal Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AAEA22@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Dear Alissa, Based on Wolf-Ulrich’s original (pre-) assessment, he, Mary, Keith and I have pulled together the attached draft. While we are still waiting for the final cross-community approval (the decision is expected tomorrow morning). I would welcome comments and thoughts from colleagues – it would be good if we have time tomorrow to have input on the document so that perhaps we could develop the text in time for our conference call on 8 July. Thanks Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: names-proposal-preassessment-draft-v1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 62464 bytes Desc: names-proposal-preassessment-draft-v1.doc URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Wed Jun 24 19:54:13 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 19:54:13 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal In-Reply-To: <23dc4f0a54a248398f50cbeb5aa72cb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <23dc4f0a54a248398f50cbeb5aa72cb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954986EABA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Anyone know the ALAC's schedule for review and decision-making? From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 4:29 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From keith at internetnz.net.nz Wed Jun 24 20:04:07 2015 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:04:07 +1200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal In-Reply-To: <23dc4f0a54a248398f50cbeb5aa72cb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <23dc4f0a54a248398f50cbeb5aa72cb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <558B0D37.2010703@internetnz.net.nz> Milton was a little premature, but the ccNSO Council has now resolved to accept the Names proposal. Cheers Keith On 25/06/2015 7:28 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote: > Milton L Mueller > > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 24 20:19:36 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:19:36 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] updated response to Larry In-Reply-To: <59E23CCB-DA4F-4498-A689-7D31E2C00202@cooperw.in> References: <59E23CCB-DA4F-4498-A689-7D31E2C00202@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <3F977DFB80184CB2AE7781E4330E0677@WUKPC> Thanks Alissa, for the discussion tomorrow I've made some amendments to the draft (see attached). Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:51 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] updated response to Larry Still waiting on the CCWG response, but I tried to update this in light of Larry’s comments yesterday and Fadi’s presentation this morning. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NTIA-letter-response-v1_WUKedit.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19315 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Wed Jun 24 20:20:55 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:20:55 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] updated response to Larry Message-ID: In addition, could the ICANN Dublin meeting be shown in the timeline? Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: WUKnoben Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 5:19 PM To: Alissa Cooper ; ICG Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] updated response to Larry Thanks Alissa, for the discussion tomorrow I've made some amendments to the draft (see attached). Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Alissa Cooper Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 12:51 PM To: ICG Subject: [Internal-cg] updated response to Larry Still waiting on the CCWG response, but I tried to update this in light of Larry’s comments yesterday and Fadi’s presentation this morning. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From housley at vigilsec.com Wed Jun 24 20:32:35 2015 From: housley at vigilsec.com (Russ Housley) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 16:32:35 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] updated response to Larry In-Reply-To: <3F977DFB80184CB2AE7781E4330E0677@WUKPC> References: <59E23CCB-DA4F-4498-A689-7D31E2C00202@cooperw.in> <3F977DFB80184CB2AE7781E4330E0677@WUKPC> Message-ID: Wolf-Ulrich: I suggest the added sentence should be changed to include "possibly": As publicly indicated the ICANN board will then immediately submit the unmodified proposal to NTIA associated, possibly with separate remarks. Russ From keith at internetnz.net.nz Wed Jun 24 21:18:38 2015 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:18:38 +1200 Subject: [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal In-Reply-To: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954986EABA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <23dc4f0a54a248398f50cbeb5aa72cb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954986EABA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <558B1EAE.6000300@internetnz.net.nz> Yes, Cheryl Langdon Orr just told me it is on the At Large agenda for a vote tomorrow. Cheers Keith On 25/06/2015 7:54 a.m., Drazek, Keith wrote: > Anyone know the ALAC’s schedule for review and decision-making? > > *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf Of > *Milton L Mueller > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2015 4:29 PM > *To:* ICG > *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal > > Milton L Mueller > > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From kdrazek at verisign.com Wed Jun 24 22:14:06 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:14:06 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal In-Reply-To: <558B1EAE.6000300@internetnz.net.nz> References: <23dc4f0a54a248398f50cbeb5aa72cb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B954986EABA@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>, <558B1EAE.6000300@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: <66B23C52-7FB9-472F-A996-E28E51EA8B32@verisign.com> Thanks Keith! Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 24, 2015, at 6:18 PM, Keith Davidson wrote: > > Yes, Cheryl Langdon Orr just told me it is on the At Large agenda for a vote tomorrow. > > Cheers > > Keith > >> On 25/06/2015 7:54 a.m., Drazek, Keith wrote: >> Anyone know the ALAC’s schedule for review and decision-making? >> >> *From:*Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Milton L Mueller >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2015 4:29 PM >> *To:* ICG >> *Subject:* [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal >> >> Milton L Mueller >> >> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor >> >> Syracuse University School of Information Studies >> >> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ >> >> Internet Governance Project >> >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Jun 25 04:39:33 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 01:39:33 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG Communications Strategy Document Message-ID: <000001d0af00$f0577a70$d1066f50$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find attached the ICG Communications Strategy document prepared by Jean-Jacques that will be discussed at tomorrow's meeting. Best Regards, Jennifer -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 8:59 PM To: Jennifer Chung Cc: icg-comms at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Icg-comms] Brief notes: ICG Communications Group Internal Meeting 1 All, as promised at our meeting today, I've prepared v4 of the draft ICG Communications Strategy (encl.). You will notice that I have left aside - items to be discussed with ICANN/Comm at our meeting tomorrow (Thursday 25), - all specific calendar events and the related details, which should IMO be dealt with in a separate email, once the Communications Strategy has been approved by the full ICG. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" À: "Jennifer Chung" Cc: icg-comms at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 24 Juin 2015 16:10:23 Objet: Re: [Icg-comms] Brief notes: ICG Communications Group Internal Meeting 1 Alissa & All, Tomorrow Thursday 25 June, I will have to leave our joint meeting with ICANN-Comm for about 10 minutes, starting at 13:45. I'm sorry, I do not have the possibility to change this schedule. I'll come back to our joint meeting as soon as possible. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jennifer Chung" À: icg-comms at ianacg.org Envoyé: Mercredi 24 Juin 2015 15:49:22 Objet: [Icg-comms] Brief notes: ICG Communications Group Internal Meeting 1 Dear All, Please find the notes taken during the ICG Communications Group meeting below: Best Regards, Jennifer --------------- ICG Communications Group Internal Meeting 1 Date: Wednesday, 24 June 2015 Time: 14:00-15:00 ART Agenda: 1. ICG communications strategy 2. Collaboration with ICANN and others 3. Current ICG social media/announcements/web site outreach activities 4. Mailing list management and archiving policy Participants: Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Patrik Fältrström (SSAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Apologies: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Secretariat: Jennifer Chung Yannis Li Editing notes related to the Strategy document: 1. 'Purpose & Context' section to be edited. 2. Notes to be renamed as 'operational plan' and split into a separate document. 3. ICG Social Media - Facebook and Twitter will be maintained. ICG will also rely on ICANN Comms to broaden/’re-tweet’/link. 4. Incoming media and speaking requests - section to be combined. ICG Secretariat to be the point person. 5. Proactive media outreach - ask ICANN Comms to get in touch with media/press/agencies . 6. Media monitoring - to rely on ICANN Comms Team's technical capabilities. 7. Request the ICANN Comms Team to develop a specific media plan around the specific calendar event (Public Comment) - to be discussed with ICANN Comms tomorrow. 8. Slide decks explaining community processes, works, proposals- content must come from the community (ICG members' input). 9. Translations of slide decks (and other outreach materials) - request for translation of key materials that are finalized. 10. Webinars: ICG to do three webinars (3 different time zones) just after the opening of the public comment period. 11. Talking points: ensure that FAQ is up to date. 12. Short videos - to ask for volunteers (from ICG members?) could be free form. General concerns: 1. Clear labeling of what is 'ICG official materials' and what is not. 2. Importance of using ICG as a resource vetting materials for accuracy. Mailing list and archive policy: 1. Private archive 2. May need to create a larger mailing list that includes ICANN Comms Team and others. Action Items: 1. Subrenat to edit Strategy document v3 and circulate to the ICG mailing list tonight (24 June). 2. Secretariat to switch archive settings to private and then send note announcing this to the group. Topics to raise at ICANN Comms Team follow up meeting: 1. Request the development a specific media plan around the specific calendar event (Public Comment) - to be discussed with ICANN Comms tomorrow. - prioritized items in red above (items 8 and 10 in the Editing notes list). 2. What are the logistics of how to get agreed upon content to the designers (direct meetings/content to be sent through ICANN Comms?). 3. Request translations of key slides and finalized materials _______________________________________________ Icg-comms mailing list Icg-comms at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/icg-comms_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Icg-comms mailing list Icg-comms at ianacg.org http://ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/icg-comms_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG-Comm-strategy-v4.doc Type: application/msword Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 25 10:02:29 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:02:29 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal In-Reply-To: <558B0D37.2010703@internetnz.net.nz> References: <23dc4f0a54a248398f50cbeb5aa72cb8@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> <558B0D37.2010703@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: I was not premature, I have psychic powers > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Keith > Davidson > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 4:04 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ccNSO has approved names CWG proposal > > Milton was a little premature, but the ccNSO Council has now resolved to > accept the Names proposal. > > Cheers > > Keith > > On 25/06/2015 7:28 a.m., Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Milton L Mueller > > > > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > > > > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > > > > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > > > > Internet Governance Project > > > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 25 10:02:30 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 10:02:30 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary Message-ID: <11c51a8eaaf04fefb3964ab19d53ddb5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> I have added as much to the Exec Summary as I can. It is available in Dropbox inside a new folder I created called "Combined Proposal" Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mbashir at mbash.net Thu Jun 25 11:36:20 2015 From: mbashir at mbash.net (Mohamed El Bashir) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:36:20 +0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal Message-ID: For the ALAC, I am pleased to update you that it has unanimously ratified the CWG Proposal. Kind Regards, Mohamed On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Manal Ismail wrote: > And attached is the GAC chair letter to the CWG-Stewardship co-chairs .. > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Keith Davidson > Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:08 PM > To: internal-cg at ianacg.org > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal > > And the ccNSO members indicated unanimous support as a guide for the ccNSO > Council vote which will happen later this afternoon... > > Cheers > > Keith > > On 25/06/2015 5:50 a.m., WUKnoben wrote: > > To keep you updated: > > > > the CWG proposal has just unanimously been approved by the GNSO > > (through its council) which is one of the chartering organizations. > > > > Best regards > > > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > -- Kind Regards, Mohamed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Jun 25 11:38:55 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:38:55 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B95498701B3@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Congratulations! That makes it unanimous. Regards, Keith From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Mohamed El Bashir Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:36 AM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal For the ALAC, I am pleased to update you that it has unanimously ratified the CWG Proposal. Kind Regards, Mohamed On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 10:26 PM, Manal Ismail > wrote: And attached is the GAC chair letter to the CWG-Stewardship co-chairs .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Keith Davidson Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2015 9:08 PM To: internal-cg at ianacg.org Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] CWG proposal And the ccNSO members indicated unanimous support as a guide for the ccNSO Council vote which will happen later this afternoon... Cheers Keith On 25/06/2015 5:50 a.m., WUKnoben wrote: > To keep you updated: > > the CWG proposal has just unanimously been approved by the GNSO > (through its council) which is one of the chartering organizations. > > Best regards > > Wolf-Ulrich > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -- Kind Regards, Mohamed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jjs at dyalog.net Thu Jun 25 11:53:50 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:53:50 -0300 (GMT-03:00) Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary In-Reply-To: <11c51a8eaaf04fefb3964ab19d53ddb5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8934909.55.1435233227208.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Following on Milton's contribution, I have added a few suggested changes. This is in the same file called "Combined Proposal", and bears the title "combined-proposal-v3". Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" À: internal-cg at ianacg.org Envoyé: Jeudi 25 Juin 2015 07:02:30 Objet: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary I have added as much to the Exec Summary as I can. It is available in Dropbox inside a new folder I created called “Combined Proposal” Milton L Mueller Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Jun 25 12:13:04 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:13:04 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Assessment of the CWG Names Proposal In-Reply-To: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AAEA22@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> References: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AAEA22@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Message-ID: <9B36735E-DF1B-43A1-B7DA-14676DD1465B@cooperw.in> Thank you for getting this together this week. Alissa On Jun 24, 2015, at 4:47 PM, Martin Boyle wrote: > Dear Alissa, > > Based on Wolf-Ulrich’s original (pre-) assessment, he, Mary, Keith and I have pulled together the attached draft. While we are still waiting for the final cross-community approval (the decision is expected tomorrow morning). > > I would welcome comments and thoughts from colleagues – it would be good if we have time tomorrow to have input on the document so that perhaps we could develop the text in time for our conference call on 8 July. > > Thanks > > Martin > > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alissa at cooperw.in Thu Jun 25 12:13:44 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:13:44 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Executive Summary In-Reply-To: <11c51a8eaaf04fefb3964ab19d53ddb5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <11c51a8eaaf04fefb3964ab19d53ddb5@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <74AE7551-EF49-4DC5-8F27-93C7A6E68657@cooperw.in> Thank you for getting these edits done this week. Alissa On Jun 25, 2015, at 7:02 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I have added as much to the Exec Summary as I can. > It is available in Dropbox inside a new folder I created called “Combined Proposal” > > Milton L Mueller > Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/ > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br Thu Jun 25 14:52:32 2015 From: jandyr.santos at itamaraty.gov.br (Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:52:32 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support In-Reply-To: <009901d0acf3$4a2cba20$de862e60$@icgsec.asia> References: <009901d0acf3$4a2cba20$de862e60$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FBCB0C094@URANO01.itamaraty.local> Thank you, Jennifer. This is to confirm that I'll need travel support to attend ICG face-to-face meeting #6 in Los Angeles on Friday 18 – Saturday 19 September 2015. Thanks, Jandyr ________________________________ De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] em nome de Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia] Enviado: segunda-feira, 22 de junho de 2015 10:56 Para: 'ICG' Cc: admin at icgsec.asia Assunto: [Internal-cg] ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support Dear ICG Members, ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday 18 – Saturday 19 September 2015. In accordance with ICANN's travel support guidelines and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (17-20 September) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. We invite you please to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin at icgsec.asia by Friday 3 July 2015. In reference to Alissa’s earlier email, please also let the Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa processing. Thanks, Best regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kuoweiwu at gmail.com Thu Jun 25 15:27:34 2015 From: kuoweiwu at gmail.com (Wu Kuo-Wei) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 23:27:34 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support In-Reply-To: <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FBCB0C094@URANO01.itamaraty.local> References: <009901d0acf3$4a2cba20$de862e60$@icgsec.asia> <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FBCB0C094@URANO01.itamaraty.local> Message-ID: <2CD5FF27-8977-4FB5-9A8D-083D61025EE1@gmail.com> The room temperature is really low now. Could we turn the air-condition temperature higher? Kuo Wu > Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior 於 2015年6月25日 22:52 寫道： > > Thank you, Jennifer. > > This is to confirm that I'll need travel support to attend ICG face-to-face meeting #6 in Los Angeles on Friday 18 – Saturday 19 September 2015. > > Thanks, > > Jandyr > > > > De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org ] em nome de Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia ] > Enviado: segunda-feira, 22 de junho de 2015 10:56 > Para: 'ICG' > Cc: admin at icgsec.asia > Assunto: [Internal-cg] ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support > > Dear ICG Members, > > ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday 18 – Saturday 19 September 2015. > > In accordance with  ICANN's travel support guidelines and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. > > Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (17-20 September) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. > > We invite you please to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin at icgsec.asia by Friday 3 July 2015. > > In reference to Alissa’s earlier email, please also let the Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa processing. > > Thanks, > > Best regards, > Jennifer > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daniel at karrenberg.net Thu Jun 25 15:50:42 2015 From: daniel at karrenberg.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:50:42 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Message-ID: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> To be clear: I fully support going to the customer communities and say that we need to show a public record of how they arrived at their responses and ask them to give us *pointers* to their public records that we can include in our deliverable. We can provide a rationale for it as summarised by Alissa's slide about "public record". I do *not* support and strongly warn against going to the customer communities with the question: "What alternatives have you considered?" Daniel From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Jun 25 16:39:04 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:39:04 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> I agree with Daniel on this. Keith Drazek > On Jun 25, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > > To be clear: > > I fully support going to the customer communities and say that we need > to show a public record of how they arrived at their responses and ask > them to give us *pointers* to their public records that we can include > in our deliverable. We can provide a rationale for it as summarised by > Alissa's slide about "public record". > > I do *not* support and strongly warn against going to the customer > communities with the question: "What alternatives have you considered?" > > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 25 16:49:33 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:49:33 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support In-Reply-To: <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FBCB0C094@URANO01.itamaraty.local> References: <009901d0acf3$4a2cba20$de862e60$@icgsec.asia> <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FBCB0C094@URANO01.itamaraty.local> Message-ID: <187d3536e34a4e76b649a3bf2554df97@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> I will need travel support, too. But I am not sure I can even go yet. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 10:53 AM To: Jennifer Chung; 'ICG' Cc: admin at icgsec.asia Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support Thank you, Jennifer. This is to confirm that I'll need travel support to attend ICG face-to-face meeting #6 in Los Angeles on Friday 18 - Saturday 19 September 2015. Thanks, Jandyr ________________________________ De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] em nome de Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia] Enviado: segunda-feira, 22 de junho de 2015 10:56 Para: 'ICG' Cc: admin at icgsec.asia Assunto: [Internal-cg] ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support Dear ICG Members, ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday 18 - Saturday 19 September 2015. In accordance with ICANN's travel support guidelines and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (17-20 September) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. We invite you please to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin at icgsec.asia by Friday 3 July 2015. In reference to Alissa's earlier email, please also let the Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa processing. Thanks, Best regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Jun 25 17:18:40 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:18:40 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> Message-ID: Agree, but I think a fair statement could be crafted along the lines of: ³IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them?² Thanks‹ J. On 6/25/15, 13:39 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >I agree with Daniel on this. > >Keith Drazek > >> On Jun 25, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>wrote: >> >> >> >> To be clear: >> >> I fully support going to the customer communities and say that we need >> to show a public record of how they arrived at their responses and ask >> them to give us *pointers* to their public records that we can include >> in our deliverable. We can provide a rationale for it as summarised by >> Alissa's slide about "public record". >> >> I do *not* support and strongly warn against going to the customer >> communities with the question: "What alternatives have you considered?" >> >> >> Daniel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Internal-cg mailing list >Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jbladel at godaddy.com Thu Jun 25 17:20:25 2015 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:20:25 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support In-Reply-To: <187d3536e34a4e76b649a3bf2554df97@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> References: <009901d0acf3$4a2cba20$de862e60$@icgsec.asia> <73CC8A997D7EAD49ADC6848F9DDF3E0FBCB0C094@URANO01.itamaraty.local> <187d3536e34a4e76b649a3bf2554df97@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi folks - I can confirm that I will NOT be able to attend this session in person. Furthermore, I have an all day conflict that may prevent me from participating remotely on Friday 18 September. But I"ll do my best. Thanks- J. From: Milton L Mueller > Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 13:49 To: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior >, Jennifer Chung >, 'ICG' > Cc: "admin at icgsec.asia" > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support I will need travel support, too. But I am not sure I can even go yet. From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 10:53 AM To: Jennifer Chung; 'ICG' Cc: admin at icgsec.asia Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support Thank you, Jennifer. This is to confirm that I'll need travel support to attend ICG face-to-face meeting #6 in Los Angeles on Friday 18 - Saturday 19 September 2015. Thanks, Jandyr ________________________________ De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] em nome de Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia] Enviado: segunda-feira, 22 de junho de 2015 10:56 Para: 'ICG' Cc: admin at icgsec.asia Assunto: [Internal-cg] ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support Dear ICG Members, ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday 18 - Saturday 19 September 2015. In accordance withICANN's travel support guidelines and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting. Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (17-20 September) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred. We invite youplease to flag any travel support requests you may have using admin at icgsec.asia by Friday 3 July 2015. In reference to Alissa's earlier email, please also let the Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa processing. Thanks, Best regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kdrazek at verisign.com Thu Jun 25 17:24:06 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:24:06 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com>, Message-ID: That also makes sense to me. Keith Drazek > On Jun 25, 2015, at 2:18 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: > > Agree, but I think a fair statement could be crafted along the lines of: > > ³IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them?² > > Thanks‹ > > J. > > >> On 6/25/15, 13:39 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >> >> I agree with Daniel on this. >> >> Keith Drazek >> >>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> To be clear: >>> >>> I fully support going to the customer communities and say that we need >>> to show a public record of how they arrived at their responses and ask >>> them to give us *pointers* to their public records that we can include >>> in our deliverable. We can provide a rationale for it as summarised by >>> Alissa's slide about "public record". >>> >>> I do *not* support and strongly warn against going to the customer >>> communities with the question: "What alternatives have you considered?" >>> >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Thu Jun 25 17:34:45 2015 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 14:34:45 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> Message-ID: I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they have chosen. Regards from the airport Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone > Am 25.06.2015 um 14:24 schrieb Drazek, Keith : > > That also makes sense to me. > > Keith Drazek > > > >> On Jun 25, 2015, at 2:18 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: >> >> Agree, but I think a fair statement could be crafted along the lines of: >> >> ³IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them?² >> >> Thanks‹ >> >> J. >> >> >>> On 6/25/15, 13:39 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: >>> >>> I agree with Daniel on this. >>> >>> Keith Drazek >>> >>>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To be clear: >>>> >>>> I fully support going to the customer communities and say that we need >>>> to show a public record of how they arrived at their responses and ask >>>> them to give us *pointers* to their public records that we can include >>>> in our deliverable. We can provide a rationale for it as summarised by >>>> Alissa's slide about "public record". >>>> >>>> I do *not* support and strongly warn against going to the customer >>>> communities with the question: "What alternatives have you considered?" >>>> >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Internal-cg mailing list >>>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From yannis at icgsec.asia Thu Jun 25 17:57:59 2015 From: yannis at icgsec.asia (Yannis Li) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 01:57:59 +0800 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICANN 53 - ICG Working Session 3: Chat Transcript & Attendance List Message-ID: Dear ICG Members, Please find attached the chat transcript and the below attendance list of the ICG working session 3 at ICANN Buenos Aires. ICG Members Alan Barrett (NRO) Alissa Cooper (IETF) Daniel Karrenberg (RSSAC) Demi Getschko (ISOC) Hartmut Glaser (ASO) Jean-Jacques Subrenat (ALAC) Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos (GAC) Jari Arkko (IETF) Jon Nevett (gTLD Registries) Kavouss Arasteh (GAC) Keith Davidson (ccNSO) Keith Drazek (gTLD Registries) Lynn St Amour (IAB) Manal Ismail (GAC) Martin Boyle (ccNSO) Mary Uduma (ccNSO) Milton Mueller (GNSO) Paul Wilson (NRO) Patrik Fältström (SSAC) Russ Mundy (SSAC) Russ Housley (IAB) Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (GNSO) Xiaodong Lee (ccNSO) Liaisons Kuo-wei Wu (Board Liaison) Apologies James Bladel (GNSO) Joseph Alhadeff (ICC/BASIS) Lars-Johan Liman (RSSAC) Michael Niebel (GAC) Mohamed El Bashir (ALAC) Narelle Clark (ISOC) Thomas Schneider (GAC) Elise Gerich (IANA Staff Liaison) Best Regards, Yannis Li ICG Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICG F2F Meeting 5-Day 3-Chat Transcript.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 66800 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Jun 25 18:11:31 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:11:31 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG wrap up working session 25 June 2015: Action items Message-ID: <012f01d0af72$5eab1fb0$1c015f10$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, Please find the action items list below for the ICG wrap up session below: Summary of Action Items: 1. ICG Chairs to incorporate edits discussed, coordinate with CCWG-Accountability's response, and share the updated draft response to NTIA letter to the internal-cg mailing list early next week. 2. ICG Members send comments to the internal-cg mailing list regarding ICG communications strategy document v4 (http://bit.ly/1BEgQuc) by 1 July 2015 23:59 UTC. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Jun 25 18:17:30 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:17:30 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] Comment received on the ICG Forum Message-ID: <015401d0af73$34f51080$9edf3180$@icgsec.asia> Dear All, The following comments have been posted to the ICG Forum today: 25 June - "CWG-Stewardship propsal" from Richard Hill http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mnuduma at yahoo.com Thu Jun 25 18:41:06 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:41:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <891332205.1472752.1435257666623.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> I will need travel support for the ICG  f2f meeting #6, 18-19 September 2015. Mry Uduma On Thursday, June 25, 2015 2:20 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: Hi folks - I can confirm that I will NOT be able to attend this session in person.  Furthermore, I have an all day conflict that may prevent me from participating remotely on Friday 18 September.  But I”ll do my best. Thanks— J. From: Milton L Mueller Date: Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 13:49 To: Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior , Jennifer Chung , 'ICG' Cc: "admin at icgsec.asia" Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support #yiv3195325567 #yiv3195325567 -- _filtered #yiv3195325567 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3195325567 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3195325567 {font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv3195325567 #yiv3195325567 p.yiv3195325567MsoNormal, #yiv3195325567 li.yiv3195325567MsoNormal, #yiv3195325567 div.yiv3195325567MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv3195325567 a:link, #yiv3195325567 span.yiv3195325567MsoHyperlink {color:#0563C1;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3195325567 a:visited, #yiv3195325567 span.yiv3195325567MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3195325567 p.yiv3195325567msochpdefault, #yiv3195325567 li.yiv3195325567msochpdefault, #yiv3195325567 div.yiv3195325567msochpdefault {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv3195325567 span.yiv3195325567emailstyle17 {color:windowtext;}#yiv3195325567 span.yiv3195325567emailstyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv3195325567 span.yiv3195325567EmailStyle20 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv3195325567 .yiv3195325567MsoChpDefault {font-size:10.0pt;} _filtered #yiv3195325567 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3195325567 div.yiv3195325567WordSection1 {}#yiv3195325567 I will need travel support, too. But I am not sure I can even go yet.   From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org]On Behalf Of Jandyr Ferreira dos Santos Junior Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 10:53 AM To: Jennifer Chung; 'ICG' Cc: admin at icgsec.asia Subject: [Internal-cg] RES: ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support   Thank you, Jennifer.   This is to confirm that I'll need travel support to attend ICG face-to-face meeting #6 in Los Angeles on Friday 18 – Saturday 19 September 2015.   Thanks,   Jandyr       De: Internal-cg [internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] em nome de Jennifer Chung [jen at icgsec.asia] Enviado: segunda-feira, 22 de junho de 2015 10:56 Para: 'ICG' Cc: admin at icgsec.asia Assunto: [Internal-cg] ICG face-to-face meeting #6 - travel support Dear ICG Members,   ICG face-to-face meeting #6 will be held in Los Angeles on Friday 18 – Saturday 19 September 2015.   In accordance withICANN's travel support guidelines and in line with the ICG travel support plan, ICANN is able to provide travel support to ICG members to participate in this ICG meeting.   Please note that supported travelers must book their air travel with ICANN's authorized travel agent, where the cost will be billed directly to ICANN. Hotel rooms and tax for a specified meeting will be arranged and paid for directly by ICANN in accordance with the authorized arrival and departure dates (17-20 September) for each supported traveler. ICANN will only book and pay for a non-refundable, lowest logical price airfare, and economy airfare. Reimbursement will be permitted for meeting attendance and other reasonable incidental expenses incurred.   We invite youplease to flag any travel support requests you may have usingadmin at icgsec.asia by Friday 3 July 2015.   In reference to Alissa’s earlier email, please also let the Secretariat know if you will require any assistance with visa processing.   Thanks,   Best regards, Jennifer _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mundy at tislabs.com Thu Jun 25 20:36:10 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 17:36:10 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> Message-ID: <12E9BBAA-6FF0-4D3E-A7C9-19249FEA0856@tislabs.com> On Jun 25, 2015, at 2:18 PM, James M. Bladel wrote: > Agree, but I think a fair statement could be crafted along the lines of: > > ³IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them?² This sounds like a reasonable approach to me. RussM > > Thanks‹ > > J. > > > On 6/25/15, 13:39 , "Drazek, Keith" wrote: > >> I agree with Daniel on this. >> >> Keith Drazek >> >>> On Jun 25, 2015, at 1:28 PM, Daniel Karrenberg >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> To be clear: >>> >>> I fully support going to the customer communities and say that we need >>> to show a public record of how they arrived at their responses and ask >>> them to give us *pointers* to their public records that we can include >>> in our deliverable. We can provide a rationale for it as summarised by >>> Alissa's slide about "public record". >>> >>> I do *not* support and strongly warn against going to the customer >>> communities with the question: "What alternatives have you considered?" >>> >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Thu Jun 25 21:10:45 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (Jennifer Chung) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:10:45 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] FW: CWG-Stewardship Response to ICG RFP In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01cc01d0af8b$6a159a60$3e40cf20$@icgsec.asia> Dear ICG members, Please see CWG-Stewardship’s Response to ICG RFP as sent to the ICG Chairs. Best Regards, Jennifer From: Grace Abuhamad [mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 11:29 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Patrik Fältström; Mohamed El Bashir Cc: ICG Secretariat; Jonathan Robinson; Lise Fuhr Subject: CWG-Stewardship Response to ICG RFP Sent on behalf of CWG-Stewardship Chairs by support staff. The Final Proposal is attached in PDF format along with a covering note in PDF format. The covering note is copied below. For a link to the Final Proposal (and downloadable Word and PDF formats), please see: https://community.icann.org/x/aJ00Aw. 25 June 2015 Alissa Cooper, Chair Mohamed El Bashir, Vice Chair Patrik Fältström, Vice Chair IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group Dear Alissa, Mohamed, and Patrik, Following the submission on the Cross Community Working Group on Naming Related Functions (CWG-Stewardship) Final Proposal to its Chartering Organizations on 11 June 2015, we are pleased to announce that the proposal has been approved by all five organizations as the response from the Names community to the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG) Request for Proposals. Each of the Chartering Organizations’ approval and statement is recorded as follows: ? Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) ? Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) ? Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) ? Country Codes Names Supporting Organisation (ccNSO) ? At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) The Final Proposal is the result of extensive work over the past year by the CWG-Stewardship’s diverse group comprising; 19 members, 133 participants and a team of highly qualified legal advisors. The group’s work included over 100 calls or meetings, 4,000 email messages and at least 5,000 volunteer hours. The Final Proposal represents a carefully crafted balance between key requirements, specific legal advice and significant compromises by all who participated. It includes diligent attention to the input of 115 comments received through the Public Comment proceedings. Prior to submitting to the Chartering Organizations or their approval, the Final Proposal received the consensus support of the CWG-Stewardship itself, with no objections or minority statements recorded. The CWG-Stewardship proposal is significantly dependent and expressly conditioned on the implementation of ICANN-level accountability mechanisms proposed by the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG-Accountability). The co-Chairs of the CWG-Stewardship and the CCWG-Accountability have coordinated their efforts and the CWG-Stewardship is confident that the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 1 recommendations, if implemented as expected, will meet the requirements that the CWG-Stewardship has previously communicated to the CCWG-Accountability. If any element of these ICANN level accountability mechanisms is not implemented as contemplated by the CWG-Stewardship proposal, this proposal will require revision. We also note that there are certain implementation elements that will require further work in the near future, including coordination with the other respondents to the ICG RFP as appropriate and the ICG where necessary. In any event, we will continue to make ourselves available to you in order to answer any questions you may have and to explain any details of the proposal. For your information, comprehensive further background documents and reference materials are available here. Best regards, Lise Fuhr and Jonathan Robinson Co-Chairs, CWG-Stewardship In accordance to the rules of the ccNSO ( http://ccnso.icann.org/about/ccnso-rules-dec04-en.pdf), the decisions in this resolution will become effective seven days after publication of these decisions by the Council. For the interim, the chair of the ccNSO is requested to inform the co-chairs of the CWG-Stewardship of the decision of the ccNSO Council under the assumption the decision is effective and subsequently, after seven (7) days, whether these decision has become effective. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FinalTransitionProposal_11June.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1461876 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CWG RFP Final Proposal Covering Note.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 117584 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mueller at syr.edu Thu Jun 25 21:11:30 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 21:11:30 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com>, Message-ID: <96110b8f35a347e7af7fe941a7643323@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > On Jun 25, 2015, at 2:18 PM, James M. Bladel > wrote: > > Agree, but I think a fair statement could be crafted along the lines of: > > IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them?² Knowing the answer to this kind of a question is essential to the development of the kind of public record we need. I also think we don't need to ask for the answer if some ICG members are concerned about that; for each operational community there are 2 or 3 of us on the ICG and we know what happened in that regard and could find the pointer to the appropriate part of the record (email archives, prior versions of proposals, etc.) From daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net Fri Jun 26 09:26:14 2015 From: daniel.karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:26:14 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <12E9BBAA-6FF0-4D3E-A7C9-19249FEA0856@tislabs.com> References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> <12E9BBAA-6FF0-4D3E-A7C9-19249FEA0856@tislabs.com> Message-ID: <558D1AB6.3030006@ripe.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 After more reflection I still do not support this. I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words: I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop this description. We should describe our own process and provide pointers to the public record of how the customer communities developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel something is missing from their response to us or from the existing public record. Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the result meet the criteria set out at the beginning. There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities. Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum number of words possible. We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do not consider it necessary. Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) iQIVAwUBVY0attDY5Emqa716AQIzWg//QmA1mgSvsv43gK1t0dKgdii5XB3IyheZ ma0AM9Lw4xGm49sCE+CXOYaWYJDLFOdpePdt6RUowuP0R1upGP9f5Uiu5c2AsL8T 8QwsYVtbyhL27c5Y1JlTRiuZ3eufGT6l7ZWiicowvEnvluuRexyM0wY3J08FVivz 2oQZ5d0m445HcK4HUpyLjEBQzsQiLz+Rr5itdp4Bc7gweJsHvu7UclXoJROeC+KB ttlUB9r+H23KsInepqrVYj/InITwh1eaIF2hmOopqU3vSRQy9KuD4juDOplcFXE0 qlQuY83rRxZcJSaoCcbiCHPS/2pmqUXV9QaF1GTEL7ZfZuZVbxQNo9csDH6E39ib psQvXMI/3AKVNfzd4eIxtXYSuArB+5XmdLWstRF3jDeX7xcx5wUhksG99BbOe/rw uP3i+gumQRRqS3+tg7U6cEZcSRYKhLB55nQ/A15Pds/KUlGnVJzbCMb9sT4Ho9ns QpMEabi3BhzwyOIxiytsnWkUA7esKLyOsuHHUFTjvfTtplhU47GJZI868vZsnEJv iV9lL+PQXnsLpn+LIpU/U/UCf1q73Ne/Drx59DmHAl7tQ28rZFTjGFQJeC4gy930 P+FENPrpRaAYT+jF/x3gS5h1f5tGBQoU10IzXcWG/1/69RNJXYDm7wj44UGsVJua a7w1xDjZc9g= =cnp9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Fri Jun 26 10:37:11 2015 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:37:11 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <558D1AB6.3030006@ripe.net> References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> <12E9BBAA-6FF0-4D3E-A7C9-19249FEA0856@tislabs.com> <558D1AB6.3030006@ripe.net> Message-ID: <67941495-0EA8-476F-A7E8-ADE9FB5F39F1@t-online.de> Since Larry Strickling was relatively general in asking for explanations re potential alternatives to the proposal clarification might be of advantage whether his concerns are more related to the CCWG proposal and its development. For the explanation of the ICG proposal I basically agree with James. Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone > Am 26.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg : > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > After more reflection I still do not support this. > > I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They > do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words: > > I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and > the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop > this description. We should describe our own process and provide > pointers to the public record of how the customer communities > developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the > principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can > ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel > something is missing from their response to us or from the existing > public record. > > Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the > result meet the criteria set out at the beginning. > > There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were > developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a > great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not > expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even > failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities. > Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum > number of words possible. > > We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we > have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely > necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the > outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of > the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do > not consider it necessary. > > Daniel > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) > > iQIVAwUBVY0attDY5Emqa716AQIzWg//QmA1mgSvsv43gK1t0dKgdii5XB3IyheZ > ma0AM9Lw4xGm49sCE+CXOYaWYJDLFOdpePdt6RUowuP0R1upGP9f5Uiu5c2AsL8T > 8QwsYVtbyhL27c5Y1JlTRiuZ3eufGT6l7ZWiicowvEnvluuRexyM0wY3J08FVivz > 2oQZ5d0m445HcK4HUpyLjEBQzsQiLz+Rr5itdp4Bc7gweJsHvu7UclXoJROeC+KB > ttlUB9r+H23KsInepqrVYj/InITwh1eaIF2hmOopqU3vSRQy9KuD4juDOplcFXE0 > qlQuY83rRxZcJSaoCcbiCHPS/2pmqUXV9QaF1GTEL7ZfZuZVbxQNo9csDH6E39ib > psQvXMI/3AKVNfzd4eIxtXYSuArB+5XmdLWstRF3jDeX7xcx5wUhksG99BbOe/rw > uP3i+gumQRRqS3+tg7U6cEZcSRYKhLB55nQ/A15Pds/KUlGnVJzbCMb9sT4Ho9ns > QpMEabi3BhzwyOIxiytsnWkUA7esKLyOsuHHUFTjvfTtplhU47GJZI868vZsnEJv > iV9lL+PQXnsLpn+LIpU/U/UCf1q73Ne/Drx59DmHAl7tQ28rZFTjGFQJeC4gy930 > P+FENPrpRaAYT+jF/x3gS5h1f5tGBQoU10IzXcWG/1/69RNJXYDm7wj44UGsVJua > a7w1xDjZc9g= > =cnp9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Fri Jun 26 11:35:15 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 08:35:15 -0300 (GMT-03:00) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <67941495-0EA8-476F-A7E8-ADE9FB5F39F1@t-online.de> Message-ID: <21415915.28.1435318513802.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello All, yesterday, just as our ICG meeting ended, Martin drew my attention to the fact that I, and at least one other colleague, had invoked the ICG Charter to oppose a new task, which would be to describe and comment "alternatives". During our meeting, the discussion was about whether recent remarks by the US Assistant Secretary for Commerce required additional action by the ICG. Daniel, Kavouss and I (and some other colleagues less directly) were of the opinion that it would not be appropriate for the ICG to express an opinion about "alternatives", and that we should limit ourselves to ensuring that the public record does document the process and choice of the operational communities. I am grateful to Martin for drawing my attention to the fact that our Charter does not explicitly rule out further, additional tasks to be performed by the ICG, at the behest of NTIA or any other public authority. I am glad to recognize his point. However, I must point out that our Charter does not provide for any revision or modification of our role. As in many areas of public policy, a charter must be viewed in its entirety. The "transition plan" we are expected to assemble is based on 4 criteria. There is no suggestion that, at a later stage, the ICG might receive further or additional instructions. Whereas the agreed process calls for us to "solicit proposals" (i/a), to "solicit broader input" (i/b) including public comment (even though the term "public comment" is not used), it does not provide for afterthoughts by the instructing authority. Further, under "Assembling and submitting a complete proposal" (iii), our task is described as "taking the proposals for the different components and verifying that the whole fulfills the intended scope, meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing parts, and that the whole fits together". I am satisfied with the decision we reached yesterday morning, which is to provide all necessary links to the process by which the operational communities made their choice. This will be our contribution to ensuring that the public record, which is understandably a requirement in public administration, is complete. If the idea of the ICG commenting on "alternatives" were to placed on our table once again, I would formally request a new set of written instructions from the public authority currently in charge of overseeing the IANA functions. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" À: "Daniel Karrenberg" Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Vendredi 26 Juin 2015 07:37:11 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Since Larry Strickling was relatively general in asking for explanations re potential alternatives to the proposal clarification might be of advantage whether his concerns are more related to the CCWG proposal and its development. For the explanation of the ICG proposal I basically agree with James. Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone > Am 26.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg : > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > After more reflection I still do not support this. > > I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They > do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words: > > I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and > the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop > this description. We should describe our own process and provide > pointers to the public record of how the customer communities > developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the > principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can > ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel > something is missing from their response to us or from the existing > public record. > > Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the > result meet the criteria set out at the beginning. > > There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were > developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a > great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not > expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even > failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities. > Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum > number of words possible. > > We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we > have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely > necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the > outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of > the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do > not consider it necessary. > > Daniel > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) > > iQIVAwUBVY0attDY5Emqa716AQIzWg//QmA1mgSvsv43gK1t0dKgdii5XB3IyheZ > ma0AM9Lw4xGm49sCE+CXOYaWYJDLFOdpePdt6RUowuP0R1upGP9f5Uiu5c2AsL8T > 8QwsYVtbyhL27c5Y1JlTRiuZ3eufGT6l7ZWiicowvEnvluuRexyM0wY3J08FVivz > 2oQZ5d0m445HcK4HUpyLjEBQzsQiLz+Rr5itdp4Bc7gweJsHvu7UclXoJROeC+KB > ttlUB9r+H23KsInepqrVYj/InITwh1eaIF2hmOopqU3vSRQy9KuD4juDOplcFXE0 > qlQuY83rRxZcJSaoCcbiCHPS/2pmqUXV9QaF1GTEL7ZfZuZVbxQNo9csDH6E39ib > psQvXMI/3AKVNfzd4eIxtXYSuArB+5XmdLWstRF3jDeX7xcx5wUhksG99BbOe/rw > uP3i+gumQRRqS3+tg7U6cEZcSRYKhLB55nQ/A15Pds/KUlGnVJzbCMb9sT4Ho9ns > QpMEabi3BhzwyOIxiytsnWkUA7esKLyOsuHHUFTjvfTtplhU47GJZI868vZsnEJv > iV9lL+PQXnsLpn+LIpU/U/UCf1q73Ne/Drx59DmHAl7tQ28rZFTjGFQJeC4gy930 > P+FENPrpRaAYT+jF/x3gS5h1f5tGBQoU10IzXcWG/1/69RNJXYDm7wj44UGsVJua > a7w1xDjZc9g= > =cnp9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From mueller at syr.edu Fri Jun 26 12:11:44 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 12:11:44 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <21415915.28.1435318513802.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <67941495-0EA8-476F-A7E8-ADE9FB5F39F1@t-online.de> <21415915.28.1435318513802.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <1f1a4c76483e46879af458baad45066d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Jean-Jacques Hard to believe we are still having this conversation.... > Daniel, Kavouss and I (and some other colleagues less directly) were of the > opinion that it would not be appropriate for the ICG to express an opinion > about "alternatives", and that we should limit ourselves to ensuring that the No one _ever_ has suggested expressing "opinions" about the alternatives considered by the operational communities. The suggestion was that we note, in concise summary form, what alternatives the OC considered and why they were accepted/rejected. Let me explain again, hopefully in a clearer way, why this is necessary so that we can get over this useless controversy. Let us suppose that in the public comment period a significant faction of comments expresses opposition to a particular part of the proposal because it proposes X rather than Y. If the operational community in question considered doing Y and deliberated on Y and its relative merit to X at length, and eventually chose X for reasons that are specified in the record, it us very useful for our report to note that. If our proposal is challenged legally - or politically - it will be important to have this kind of information in our report. If our final report does not include this information then it would not be unreasonable for people to conclude that Y was never considered or that the alleged consensus behind X is not real. That's really all that is being proposed. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Subrenat, Jean-Jacques > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:35 AM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Hello All, > > yesterday, just as our ICG meeting ended, Martin drew my attention to the > fact that I, and at least one other colleague, had invoked the ICG Charter to > oppose a new task, which would be to describe and comment "alternatives". > During our meeting, the discussion was about whether recent remarks by the > US Assistant Secretary for Commerce required additional action by the ICG. > public record does document the process and choice of the operational > communities. > > I am grateful to Martin for drawing my attention to the fact that our Charter > does not explicitly rule out further, additional tasks to be performed by the > ICG, at the behest of NTIA or any other public authority. I am glad to > recognize his point. However, I must point out that our Charter does not > provide for any revision or modification of our role. > > As in many areas of public policy, a charter must be viewed in its entirety. > The "transition plan" we are expected to assemble is based on 4 criteria. > There is no suggestion that, at a later stage, the ICG might receive further or > additional instructions. Whereas the agreed process calls for us to "solicit > proposals" (i/a), to "solicit broader input" (i/b) including public comment > (even though the term "public comment" is not used), it does not provide > for afterthoughts by the instructing authority. Further, under "Assembling > and submitting a complete proposal" (iii), our task is described as "taking the > proposals for the different components and verifying that the whole fulfills > the intended scope, meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing > parts, and that the whole fits together". > > I am satisfied with the decision we reached yesterday morning, which is to > provide all necessary links to the process by which the operational > communities made their choice. This will be our contribution to ensuring > that the public record, which is understandably a requirement in public > administration, is complete. If the idea of the ICG commenting on > "alternatives" were to placed on our table once again, I would formally > request a new set of written instructions from the public authority currently > in charge of overseeing the IANA functions. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" > À: "Daniel Karrenberg" > Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Vendredi 26 Juin 2015 07:37:11 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Since Larry Strickling was relatively general in asking for explanations re > potential alternatives to the proposal clarification might be of advantage > whether his concerns are more related to the CCWG proposal and its > development. > For the explanation of the ICG proposal I basically agree with James. > > Wolf-Ulrich > > Sent from my personal phone > > > Am 26.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg > : > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > After more reflection I still do not support this. > > > > I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They > > do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words: > > > > I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and > > the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop > > this description. We should describe our own process and provide > > pointers to the public record of how the customer communities > > developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the > > principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can > > ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel > > something is missing from their response to us or from the existing > > public record. > > > > Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the > > result meet the criteria set out at the beginning. > > > > There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were > > developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a > > great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not > > expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even > > failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities. > > Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum > > number of words possible. > > > > We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we > > have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely > > necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the > > outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of > > the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do > > not consider it necessary. > > > > Daniel > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) > > > > > iQIVAwUBVY0attDY5Emqa716AQIzWg//QmA1mgSvsv43gK1t0dKgdii5XB3IyheZ > > > ma0AM9Lw4xGm49sCE+CXOYaWYJDLFOdpePdt6RUowuP0R1upGP9f5Uiu5c2A > sL8T > > 8QwsYVtbyhL27c5Y1JlTRiuZ3eufGT6l7ZWiicowvEnvluuRexyM0wY3J08FVivz > > > 2oQZ5d0m445HcK4HUpyLjEBQzsQiLz+Rr5itdp4Bc7gweJsHvu7UclXoJROeC+KB > > ttlUB9r+H23KsInepqrVYj/InITwh1eaIF2hmOopqU3vSRQy9KuD4juDOplcFXE0 > > > qlQuY83rRxZcJSaoCcbiCHPS/2pmqUXV9QaF1GTEL7ZfZuZVbxQNo9csDH6E39ib > > > psQvXMI/3AKVNfzd4eIxtXYSuArB+5XmdLWstRF3jDeX7xcx5wUhksG99BbOe/rw > > > uP3i+gumQRRqS3+tg7U6cEZcSRYKhLB55nQ/A15Pds/KUlGnVJzbCMb9sT4Ho9n > s > > QpMEabi3BhzwyOIxiytsnWkUA7esKLyOsuHHUFTjvfTtplhU47GJZI868vZsnEJv > > iV9lL+PQXnsLpn+LIpU/U/UCf1q73Ne/Drx59DmHAl7tQ28rZFTjGFQJeC4gy930 > > > P+FENPrpRaAYT+jF/x3gS5h1f5tGBQoU10IzXcWG/1/69RNJXYDm7wj44UGsVJua > > a7w1xDjZc9g= > > =cnp9 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri Jun 26 18:46:46 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:46:46 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <67941495-0EA8-476F-A7E8-ADE9FB5F39F1@t-online.de> References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> <12E9BBAA-6FF0-4D3E-A7C9-19249FEA0856@tislabs.com> <558D1AB6.3030006@ripe.net> <67941495-0EA8-476F-A7E8-ADE9FB5F39F1@t-online.de> Message-ID: <54821954-F734-484B-9ED2-E326B262B9F1@gmail.com> Wolf I was at the meeting and carefully listened to him and later on talked to him He eluded to the consideration of possible alternative way to pursue CCWG proposal on the table during the second round. In NO way he referred or meant to advocate the need for alternative ICG Proposal Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Jun 2015, at 07:37, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: > > Since Larry Strickling was relatively general in asking for explanations re potential alternatives to the proposal clarification might be of advantage whether his concerns are more related to the CCWG proposal and its development. > For the explanation of the ICG proposal I basically agree with James. > > Wolf-Ulrich > > Sent from my personal phone > >> Am 26.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg : >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> After more reflection I still do not support this. >> >> I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They >> do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words: >> >> I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and >> the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop >> this description. We should describe our own process and provide >> pointers to the public record of how the customer communities >> developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the >> principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can >> ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel >> something is missing from their response to us or from the existing >> public record. >> >> Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the >> result meet the criteria set out at the beginning. >> >> There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were >> developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a >> great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not >> expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even >> failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities. >> Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum >> number of words possible. >> >> We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we >> have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely >> necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the >> outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of >> the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do >> not consider it necessary. >> >> Daniel >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) >> >> iQIVAwUBVY0attDY5Emqa716AQIzWg//QmA1mgSvsv43gK1t0dKgdii5XB3IyheZ >> ma0AM9Lw4xGm49sCE+CXOYaWYJDLFOdpePdt6RUowuP0R1upGP9f5Uiu5c2AsL8T >> 8QwsYVtbyhL27c5Y1JlTRiuZ3eufGT6l7ZWiicowvEnvluuRexyM0wY3J08FVivz >> 2oQZ5d0m445HcK4HUpyLjEBQzsQiLz+Rr5itdp4Bc7gweJsHvu7UclXoJROeC+KB >> ttlUB9r+H23KsInepqrVYj/InITwh1eaIF2hmOopqU3vSRQy9KuD4juDOplcFXE0 >> qlQuY83rRxZcJSaoCcbiCHPS/2pmqUXV9QaF1GTEL7ZfZuZVbxQNo9csDH6E39ib >> psQvXMI/3AKVNfzd4eIxtXYSuArB+5XmdLWstRF3jDeX7xcx5wUhksG99BbOe/rw >> uP3i+gumQRRqS3+tg7U6cEZcSRYKhLB55nQ/A15Pds/KUlGnVJzbCMb9sT4Ho9ns >> QpMEabi3BhzwyOIxiytsnWkUA7esKLyOsuHHUFTjvfTtplhU47GJZI868vZsnEJv >> iV9lL+PQXnsLpn+LIpU/U/UCf1q73Ne/Drx59DmHAl7tQ28rZFTjGFQJeC4gy930 >> P+FENPrpRaAYT+jF/x3gS5h1f5tGBQoU10IzXcWG/1/69RNJXYDm7wj44UGsVJua >> a7w1xDjZc9g= >> =cnp9 >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com Fri Jun 26 18:47:42 2015 From: kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com (Kavouss Arasteh) Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 15:47:42 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <558D1AB6.3030006@ripe.net> References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> <12E9BBAA-6FF0-4D3E-A7C9-19249FEA0856@tislabs.com> <558D1AB6.3030006@ripe.net> Message-ID: <5627948D-5E52-4948-8379-06615E393298@gmail.com> Daniel Pls read my mail Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Jun 2015, at 06:26, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > After more reflection I still do not support this. > > I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They > do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words: > > I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and > the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop > this description. We should describe our own process and provide > pointers to the public record of how the customer communities > developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the > principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can > ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel > something is missing from their response to us or from the existing > public record. > > Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the > result meet the criteria set out at the beginning. > > There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were > developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a > great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not > expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even > failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities. > Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum > number of words possible. > > We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we > have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely > necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the > outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of > the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do > not consider it necessary. > > Daniel > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) > > iQIVAwUBVY0attDY5Emqa716AQIzWg//QmA1mgSvsv43gK1t0dKgdii5XB3IyheZ > ma0AM9Lw4xGm49sCE+CXOYaWYJDLFOdpePdt6RUowuP0R1upGP9f5Uiu5c2AsL8T > 8QwsYVtbyhL27c5Y1JlTRiuZ3eufGT6l7ZWiicowvEnvluuRexyM0wY3J08FVivz > 2oQZ5d0m445HcK4HUpyLjEBQzsQiLz+Rr5itdp4Bc7gweJsHvu7UclXoJROeC+KB > ttlUB9r+H23KsInepqrVYj/InITwh1eaIF2hmOopqU3vSRQy9KuD4juDOplcFXE0 > qlQuY83rRxZcJSaoCcbiCHPS/2pmqUXV9QaF1GTEL7ZfZuZVbxQNo9csDH6E39ib > psQvXMI/3AKVNfzd4eIxtXYSuArB+5XmdLWstRF3jDeX7xcx5wUhksG99BbOe/rw > uP3i+gumQRRqS3+tg7U6cEZcSRYKhLB55nQ/A15Pds/KUlGnVJzbCMb9sT4Ho9ns > QpMEabi3BhzwyOIxiytsnWkUA7esKLyOsuHHUFTjvfTtplhU47GJZI868vZsnEJv > iV9lL+PQXnsLpn+LIpU/U/UCf1q73Ne/Drx59DmHAl7tQ28rZFTjGFQJeC4gy930 > P+FENPrpRaAYT+jF/x3gS5h1f5tGBQoU10IzXcWG/1/69RNJXYDm7wj44UGsVJua > a7w1xDjZc9g= > =cnp9 > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de Fri Jun 26 22:28:42 2015 From: wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (WUKnoben) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 00:28:42 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <54821954-F734-484B-9ED2-E326B262B9F1@gmail.com> References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net><686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com><12E9BBAA-6FF0-4D3E-A7C9-19249FEA0856@tislabs.com><558D1AB6.3030006@ripe.net><67941495-0EA8-476F-A7E8-ADE9FB5F39F1@t-online.de> <54821954-F734-484B-9ED2-E326B262B9F1@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry Kavouss, I was not clear enough. With ICG proposal I mean the final - combined - proposal submitted by the ICG. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- From: Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 8:46 PM To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Wolf I was at the meeting and carefully listened to him and later on talked to him He eluded to the consideration of possible alternative way to pursue CCWG proposal on the table during the second round. In NO way he referred or meant to advocate the need for alternative ICG Proposal Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone > On 26 Jun 2015, at 07:37, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: > > Since Larry Strickling was relatively general in asking for explanations > re potential alternatives to the proposal clarification might be of > advantage whether his concerns are more related to the CCWG proposal and > its development. > For the explanation of the ICG proposal I basically agree with James. > > Wolf-Ulrich > > Sent from my personal phone > >> Am 26.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg >> : >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> After more reflection I still do not support this. >> >> I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They >> do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words: >> >> I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and >> the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop >> this description. We should describe our own process and provide >> pointers to the public record of how the customer communities >> developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the >> principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can >> ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel >> something is missing from their response to us or from the existing >> public record. >> >> Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the >> result meet the criteria set out at the beginning. >> >> There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were >> developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a >> great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not >> expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even >> failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities. >> Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum >> number of words possible. >> >> We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we >> have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely >> necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the >> outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of >> the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do >> not consider it necessary. >> >> Daniel >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) >> >> iQIVAwUBVY0attDY5Emqa716AQIzWg//QmA1mgSvsv43gK1t0dKgdii5XB3IyheZ >> ma0AM9Lw4xGm49sCE+CXOYaWYJDLFOdpePdt6RUowuP0R1upGP9f5Uiu5c2AsL8T >> 8QwsYVtbyhL27c5Y1JlTRiuZ3eufGT6l7ZWiicowvEnvluuRexyM0wY3J08FVivz >> 2oQZ5d0m445HcK4HUpyLjEBQzsQiLz+Rr5itdp4Bc7gweJsHvu7UclXoJROeC+KB >> ttlUB9r+H23KsInepqrVYj/InITwh1eaIF2hmOopqU3vSRQy9KuD4juDOplcFXE0 >> qlQuY83rRxZcJSaoCcbiCHPS/2pmqUXV9QaF1GTEL7ZfZuZVbxQNo9csDH6E39ib >> psQvXMI/3AKVNfzd4eIxtXYSuArB+5XmdLWstRF3jDeX7xcx5wUhksG99BbOe/rw >> uP3i+gumQRRqS3+tg7U6cEZcSRYKhLB55nQ/A15Pds/KUlGnVJzbCMb9sT4Ho9ns >> QpMEabi3BhzwyOIxiytsnWkUA7esKLyOsuHHUFTjvfTtplhU47GJZI868vZsnEJv >> iV9lL+PQXnsLpn+LIpU/U/UCf1q73Ne/Drx59DmHAl7tQ28rZFTjGFQJeC4gy930 >> P+FENPrpRaAYT+jF/x3gS5h1f5tGBQoU10IzXcWG/1/69RNJXYDm7wj44UGsVJua >> a7w1xDjZc9g= >> =cnp9 >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Jun 27 02:30:19 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 02:30:19 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG wrap up working session 25 June 2015: Action items In-Reply-To: <012f01d0af72$5eab1fb0$1c015f10$@icgsec.asia> References: <012f01d0af72$5eab1fb0$1c015f10$@icgsec.asia> Message-ID: <5165242186c54f1b8071f72ddb7ba0a3@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Many thanks Jennifer .. I thought a third action item was also agreed which has to do with reaching out to the OCs regarding material they would like to share with the ICG for inclusion on the public record .. I had to leave the meeting a bit early though, so I would appreciate being updated whether this has changed .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:12 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG wrap up working session 25 June 2015: Action items Dear All, Please find the action items list below for the ICG wrap up session below: Summary of Action Items: 1. ICG Chairs to incorporate edits discussed, coordinate with CCWG-Accountability's response, and share the updated draft response to NTIA letter to the internal-cg mailing list early next week. 2. ICG Members send comments to the internal-cg mailing list regarding ICG communications strategy document v4 (http://bit.ly/1BEgQuc) by 1 July 2015 23:59 UTC. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pwilson at apnic.net Sat Jun 27 05:18:46 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 15:18:46 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> Message-ID: Re > IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them? I am happy with this option. On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: > I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they > considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down > to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they > have chosen. This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer we are looking for. Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide against them?” Which I’d be ok with as well. Paul. From jjs at dyalog.net Sat Jun 27 12:15:26 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 09:15:26 -0300 (GMT-03:00) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <1f1a4c76483e46879af458baad45066d@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <10736293.73.1435407325326.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello Milton, as mentioned in my earlier message, - "I am satisfied with the decision" we reached in our wrap-up session. - "If the idea of the ICG commenting on "alternatives" were to be placed on our table once again, I would formally request a new set of written instructions from the public authority currently in charge of overseeing the IANA functions." At this stage, I have nothing to add. Best, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Milton L Mueller" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Vendredi 26 Juin 2015 09:11:44 Objet: RE: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Jean-Jacques Hard to believe we are still having this conversation.... > Daniel, Kavouss and I (and some other colleagues less directly) were of the > opinion that it would not be appropriate for the ICG to express an opinion > about "alternatives", and that we should limit ourselves to ensuring that the No one _ever_ has suggested expressing "opinions" about the alternatives considered by the operational communities. The suggestion was that we note, in concise summary form, what alternatives the OC considered and why they were accepted/rejected. Let me explain again, hopefully in a clearer way, why this is necessary so that we can get over this useless controversy. Let us suppose that in the public comment period a significant faction of comments expresses opposition to a particular part of the proposal because it proposes X rather than Y. If the operational community in question considered doing Y and deliberated on Y and its relative merit to X at length, and eventually chose X for reasons that are specified in the record, it us very useful for our report to note that. If our proposal is challenged legally - or politically - it will be important to have this kind of information in our report. If our final report does not include this information then it would not be unreasonable for people to conclude that Y was never considered or that the alleged consensus behind X is not real. That's really all that is being proposed. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Subrenat, Jean-Jacques > Sent: Friday, June 26, 2015 7:35 AM > To: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Hello All, > > yesterday, just as our ICG meeting ended, Martin drew my attention to the > fact that I, and at least one other colleague, had invoked the ICG Charter to > oppose a new task, which would be to describe and comment "alternatives". > During our meeting, the discussion was about whether recent remarks by the > US Assistant Secretary for Commerce required additional action by the ICG. > public record does document the process and choice of the operational > communities. > > I am grateful to Martin for drawing my attention to the fact that our Charter > does not explicitly rule out further, additional tasks to be performed by the > ICG, at the behest of NTIA or any other public authority. I am glad to > recognize his point. However, I must point out that our Charter does not > provide for any revision or modification of our role. > > As in many areas of public policy, a charter must be viewed in its entirety. > The "transition plan" we are expected to assemble is based on 4 criteria. > There is no suggestion that, at a later stage, the ICG might receive further or > additional instructions. Whereas the agreed process calls for us to "solicit > proposals" (i/a), to "solicit broader input" (i/b) including public comment > (even though the term "public comment" is not used), it does not provide > for afterthoughts by the instructing authority. Further, under "Assembling > and submitting a complete proposal" (iii), our task is described as "taking the > proposals for the different components and verifying that the whole fulfills > the intended scope, meets the intended criteria, that there are no missing > parts, and that the whole fits together". > > I am satisfied with the decision we reached yesterday morning, which is to > provide all necessary links to the process by which the operational > communities made their choice. This will be our contribution to ensuring > that the public record, which is understandably a requirement in public > administration, is complete. If the idea of the ICG commenting on > "alternatives" were to placed on our table once again, I would formally > request a new set of written instructions from the public authority currently > in charge of overseeing the IANA functions. > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" > À: "Daniel Karrenberg" > Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Vendredi 26 Juin 2015 07:37:11 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Since Larry Strickling was relatively general in asking for explanations re > potential alternatives to the proposal clarification might be of advantage > whether his concerns are more related to the CCWG proposal and its > development. > For the explanation of the ICG proposal I basically agree with James. > > Wolf-Ulrich > > Sent from my personal phone > > > Am 26.06.2015 um 11:26 schrieb Daniel Karrenberg > : > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > After more reflection I still do not support this. > > > > I understand the motivation of NTIA and the arguments in favour. They > > do not convince me that we should do extra work or add extra words: > > > > I remain convinced that all we need is a description of transition and > > the post-transition state plus a description of the process to develop > > this description. We should describe our own process and provide > > pointers to the public record of how the customer communities > > developed their responses to us. Their record already includes the > > principles they developed and discussions about alternatives. We can > > ask for *specific* clarification by the communities if we feel > > something is missing from their response to us or from the existing > > public record. > > > > Of course we should add our evaluation whether the process and the > > result meet the criteria set out at the beginning. > > > > There is no need for us to re-tell the story of how the proposals were > > developed. Re-telling the story is unnecessary work which also has a > > great risk of changing the story, even unintentionally. We should not > > expose ourselves to the risk of causing confusion or maybe even > > failure by re-interpreting the public record of the communities. > > Re-telling also creates more words. As you know I advocate the minimum > > number of words possible. > > > > We should not invent new requirements or criteria on the fly unless we > > have very strong consensus in the ICG that they are absolutely > > necessary for our deliverable and they were not foreseeable at the > > outset. Asking the communities at this point for the a description of > > the alternatives they considered is such a new requirement and I do > > not consider it necessary. > > > > Daniel > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin) > > > > > iQIVAwUBVY0attDY5Emqa716AQIzWg//QmA1mgSvsv43gK1t0dKgdii5XB3IyheZ > > > ma0AM9Lw4xGm49sCE+CXOYaWYJDLFOdpePdt6RUowuP0R1upGP9f5Uiu5c2A > sL8T > > 8QwsYVtbyhL27c5Y1JlTRiuZ3eufGT6l7ZWiicowvEnvluuRexyM0wY3J08FVivz > > > 2oQZ5d0m445HcK4HUpyLjEBQzsQiLz+Rr5itdp4Bc7gweJsHvu7UclXoJROeC+KB > > ttlUB9r+H23KsInepqrVYj/InITwh1eaIF2hmOopqU3vSRQy9KuD4juDOplcFXE0 > > > qlQuY83rRxZcJSaoCcbiCHPS/2pmqUXV9QaF1GTEL7ZfZuZVbxQNo9csDH6E39ib > > > psQvXMI/3AKVNfzd4eIxtXYSuArB+5XmdLWstRF3jDeX7xcx5wUhksG99BbOe/rw > > > uP3i+gumQRRqS3+tg7U6cEZcSRYKhLB55nQ/A15Pds/KUlGnVJzbCMb9sT4Ho9n > s > > QpMEabi3BhzwyOIxiytsnWkUA7esKLyOsuHHUFTjvfTtplhU47GJZI868vZsnEJv > > iV9lL+PQXnsLpn+LIpU/U/UCf1q73Ne/Drx59DmHAl7tQ28rZFTjGFQJeC4gy930 > > > P+FENPrpRaAYT+jF/x3gS5h1f5tGBQoU10IzXcWG/1/69RNJXYDm7wj44UGsVJua > > a7w1xDjZc9g= > > =cnp9 > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Internal-cg mailing list > > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jen at icgsec.asia Sat Jun 27 15:39:17 2015 From: jen at icgsec.asia (=?utf-8?B?amVuQGljZ3NlYy5hc2lh?=) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 12:39:17 -0300 Subject: [Internal-cg] =?utf-8?q?ICG_wrap_up_working_session_25_June_2015?= =?utf-8?q?=3A_Action_items?= Message-ID: <201506271539.t5RFdE4U002487@mail01.dotasia.org> Dear Manal, It was decided that the third action item would be removed since there was no consensus reached on this at the meeting. Hope this helps, apologies for the delayed response as I am currently still in transit. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer Sent from my Android ----- Reply message ----- From: "Manal Ismail" To: "Jennifer Chung" , "'ICG'" Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG wrap up working session 25 June 2015: Action items Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2015 11:30 PM Many thanks Jennifer .. I thought a third action item was also agreed which has to do with reaching out to the OCs regarding material they would like to share with the ICG for inclusion on the public record .. I had to leave the meeting a bit early though, so I would appreciate being updated whether this has changed .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:12 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG wrap up working session 25 June 2015: Action items Dear All, Please find the action items list below for the ICG wrap up session below: Summary of Action Items: 1. ICG Chairs to incorporate edits discussed, coordinate with CCWG-Accountability's response, and share the updated draft response to NTIA letter to the internal-cg mailing list early next week. 2. ICG Members send comments to the internal-cg mailing list regarding ICG communications strategy document v4 (http://bit.ly/1BEgQuc) by 1 July 2015 23:59 UTC. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Sat Jun 27 22:41:55 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 22:41:55 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG wrap up working session 25 June 2015: Action items In-Reply-To: <201506271539.t5RFdE4U002487@mail01.dotasia.org> References: <201506271539.t5RFdE4U002487@mail01.dotasia.org> Message-ID: <6b3c25d6c60d4f73a492fa6e03eb9872@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Thanks Jennifer for the prompt clarification .. Safe travels .. Kind Regards --Manal From: jen at icgsec.asia [mailto:jen at icgsec.asia] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 5:39 PM To: Manal Ismail; 'ICG' Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] ICG wrap up working session 25 June 2015: Action items Dear Manal, It was decided that the third action item would be removed since there was no consensus reached on this at the meeting. Hope this helps, apologies for the delayed response as I am currently still in transit. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best Regards, Jennifer Sent from my Android ----- Reply message ----- From: "Manal Ismail" > To: "Jennifer Chung" >, "'ICG'" > Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG wrap up working session 25 June 2015: Action items Date: Fri, Jun 26, 2015 11:30 PM Many thanks Jennifer .. I thought a third action item was also agreed which has to do with reaching out to the OCs regarding material they would like to share with the ICG for inclusion on the public record .. I had to leave the meeting a bit early though, so I would appreciate being updated whether this has changed .. Kind Regards --Manal From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Jennifer Chung Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 8:12 PM To: 'ICG' Subject: [Internal-cg] ICG wrap up working session 25 June 2015: Action items Dear All, Please find the action items list below for the ICG wrap up session below: Summary of Action Items: 1. ICG Chairs to incorporate edits discussed, coordinate with CCWG-Accountability's response, and share the updated draft response to NTIA letter to the internal-cg mailing list early next week. 2. ICG Members send comments to the internal-cg mailing list regarding ICG communications strategy document v4 (http://bit.ly/1BEgQuc) by 1 July 2015 23:59 UTC. Best Regards, Jennifer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From manal at tra.gov.eg Sun Jun 28 02:42:31 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 02:42:31 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> Message-ID: <4b701aa607574811b6879444198e5ee6@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Dear All .. I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos Aires ICANN meeting (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), where he stated: And consequently ask the OCs to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Re > IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them? I am happy with this option. On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: > I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they > considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down > to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they > have chosen. This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer we are looking for. Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide against them?” Which I’d be ok with as well. Paul. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Jun 28 07:33:51 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 04:33:51 -0300 (GMT-03:00) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <4b701aa607574811b6879444198e5ee6@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <90407.2.1435476828188.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Dear Manal, I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it is about consolidating the public record. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Dear All .. I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos Aires ICANN meeting (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), where he stated: And consequently ask the OCs to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Re > IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them? I am happy with this option. On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: > I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they > considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down > to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they > have chosen. This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer we are looking for. Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide against them?” Which I’d be ok with as well. Paul. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Sun Jun 28 08:24:04 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 08:24:04 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <90407.2.1435476828188.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <4b701aa607574811b6879444198e5ee6@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <90407.2.1435476828188.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <91903cc12daa4a5e847d82fb6ceab7e8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Dear Jean-Jacques .. I have sent my email before reading your email .. Apologies to have overlooked your concern .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Dear Manal, I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it is about consolidating the public record. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Dear All .. I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos Aires ICANN meeting (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), where he stated: And consequently ask the OCs to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Re > IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them? I am happy with this option. On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: > I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they > considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down > to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they > have chosen. This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer we are looking for. Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide against them?” Which I’d be ok with as well. Paul. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com Sun Jun 28 09:52:03 2015 From: joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com (Joseph Alhadeff) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 05:52:03 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <91903cc12daa4a5e847d82fb6ceab7e8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <4b701aa607574811b6879444198e5ee6@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <90407.2.1435476828188.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <91903cc12daa4a5e847d82fb6ceab7e8@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: <9BC7F9E1-6BE5-478B-BAEC-B52EB487F409@oracle.com> Sorry to have been absent from this thread. As noted in our RfP our concern with the community process was to assure that it was transparent/accessible, inclusive and fair - specifically that they took comments into account seriously in their proposal development. If that process included consideration of alternatives that they feel were important aspects of the process that should be part of the record, but I think at best it should be one of many factors they provide and they need to determine what is material for them to provide to demonstrate the essential elements of their process. I think Manal's formulation is on the right track. If NTIA wants a catalog of alternatives considered then they should make a formal request for that not just leave it interpretations of speeches. Furthermore we would have no basis to evaluate alternatives within our mandate. If a proposal fails to meet NTIA or other RFP criteria, it is our role to identify the failure and remit to the community. Apologies if this misses some nuance of the conversation as it seems to have occurred both on and off line... Joe Sent from my iPad > On Jun 28, 2015, at 4:24 AM, Manal Ismail wrote: > > Dear Jean-Jacques .. > I have sent my email before reading your email .. > Apologies to have overlooked your concern .. > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM > To: Manal Ismail > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Dear Manal, > I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it is about consolidating the public record. > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Manal Ismail" > À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" > Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Dear All .. > > I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. > > If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos Aires ICANN meeting (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), where he stated: > And consequently ask the OCs to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. > > Thoughts? > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson > Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM > To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Re > >> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them? > > I am happy with this option. > > >> On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: >> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they >> considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down >> to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they >> have chosen. > > This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer we are looking for. > > Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: > > “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide against them?” > > Which I’d be ok with as well. > > Paul. > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From manal at tra.gov.eg Sun Jun 28 11:41:09 2015 From: manal at tra.gov.eg (Manal Ismail) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:41:09 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <90407.2.1435476828188.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: <4b701aa607574811b6879444198e5ee6@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <90407.2.1435476828188.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <69ca5b6dfa9a4cde849181e69bd69863@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Dear Jean-Jacques .. At least this is my understanding .. I believe, but stand to be corrected, that we're not requesting OCs to provide comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered, but offering an opportunity, for them, to share any material they feel would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record .. Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM To: Manal Ismail Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Dear Manal, I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it is about consolidating the public record. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Manal Ismail" À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Dear All .. I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos Aires ICANN meeting (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), where he stated: And consequently ask the OCs to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. Thoughts? Kind Regards --Manal -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Re > IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them? I am happy with this option. On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: > I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they > considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down > to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they > have chosen. This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer we are looking for. Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide against them?” Which I’d be ok with as well. Paul. _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Jun 28 12:47:55 2015 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 22:47:55 +1000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <69ca5b6dfa9a4cde849181e69bd69863@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> References: <4b701aa607574811b6879444198e5ee6@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> <90407.2.1435476828188.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <69ca5b6dfa9a4cde849181e69bd69863@ntra-mbx1.TRA.GOV.EG> Message-ID: On 28 Jun 2015, at 21:41, Manal Ismail wrote: > Dear Jean-Jacques .. > > At least this is my understanding .. > I believe, but stand to be corrected, that we're not requesting OCs to > provide comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered, > but offering an opportunity, for them, to share any material they feel > would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record .. I agree. It is an opportunity, not a requirement, to provide information about alternatives which were considered. Paul. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM > To: Manal Ismail > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Dear Manal, > I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it > is about consolidating the public record. > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Manal Ismail" > À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" > > Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Dear All .. > > I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to > re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. > > If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA > transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out > to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public > record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with > Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & > Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos > Aires ICANN meeting > (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), > where he stated: > And consequently ask the OCs > to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be > useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the > proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers > to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. > > Thoughts? > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Paul Wilson > Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM > To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Re > >> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against >> them? > > I am happy with this option. > > > On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: >> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they >> considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down >> to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they >> have chosen. > > This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer > we are looking for. > > Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: > > “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide > against them?” > > Which I’d be ok with as well. > > Paul. > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Jun 28 14:31:49 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 11:31:49 -0300 (GMT-03:00) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <12594893.54.1435501906027.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> To sum up the latest remarks on this thread: - we will not request OCs to provide "comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered" (Manal); - if we approach the OCs, for them it could only be "an opportunity to share any material they feel would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record" (Manal); - anything additional to our original remit would only be "for the purpose of consolidating the public record" (Jean-Jacques); - we shall not change our remit unless we receive OFFICIAL, WRITTEN instructions to that effect (Jean-Jacques). Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Paul Wilson" À: "Manal Ismail" Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" Envoyé: Dimanche 28 Juin 2015 09:47:55 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" On 28 Jun 2015, at 21:41, Manal Ismail wrote: > Dear Jean-Jacques .. > > At least this is my understanding .. > I believe, but stand to be corrected, that we're not requesting OCs to > provide comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered, > but offering an opportunity, for them, to share any material they feel > would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record .. I agree. It is an opportunity, not a requirement, to provide information about alternatives which were considered. Paul. > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > -----Original Message----- > From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] > Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM > To: Manal Ismail > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Dear Manal, > I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it > is about consolidating the public record. > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Manal Ismail" > À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" > > Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" > Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Dear All .. > > I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to > re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. > > If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA > transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out > to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public > record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with > Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & > Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos > Aires ICANN meeting > (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), > where he stated: > And consequently ask the OCs > to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be > useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the > proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers > to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. > > Thoughts? > > Kind Regards > --Manal > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of > Paul Wilson > Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM > To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de > Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group > Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > Re > >> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against >> them? > > I am happy with this option. > > > On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: >> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they >> considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down >> to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they >> have chosen. > > This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer > we are looking for. > > Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: > > “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide > against them?” > > Which I’d be ok with as well. > > Paul. > > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg From kdrazek at verisign.com Sun Jun 28 14:56:29 2015 From: kdrazek at verisign.com (Drazek, Keith) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 14:56:29 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <12594893.54.1435501906027.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> References: , <12594893.54.1435501906027.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Message-ID: <39545735-C7F2-4EE2-B9DE-128EC60401EA@verisign.com> In mentioning alternatives considered, I think Sec. Strickling was referring to the CCWG Accountability, not the ICG. Am I alone? Best, Keith > On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > To sum up the latest remarks on this thread: > > - we will not request OCs to provide "comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered" (Manal); > > - if we approach the OCs, for them it could only be "an opportunity to share any material they feel would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record" (Manal); > > - anything additional to our original remit would only be "for the purpose of consolidating the public record" (Jean-Jacques); > > - we shall not change our remit unless we receive OFFICIAL, WRITTEN instructions to that effect (Jean-Jacques). > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Paul Wilson" > À: "Manal Ismail" > Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" > Envoyé: Dimanche 28 Juin 2015 09:47:55 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > >> On 28 Jun 2015, at 21:41, Manal Ismail wrote: >> Dear Jean-Jacques .. >> >> At least this is my understanding .. >> I believe, but stand to be corrected, that we're not requesting OCs to >> provide comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered, >> but offering an opportunity, for them, to share any material they feel >> would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record .. > > I agree. It is an opportunity, not a requirement, to provide > information about alternatives which were considered. > > Paul. > > > >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] >> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM >> To: Manal Ismail >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >> >> Dear Manal, >> I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it >> is about consolidating the public record. >> Best regards, >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Manal Ismail" >> À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" >> >> Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >> Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >> >> Dear All .. >> >> I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to >> re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. >> >> If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA >> transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out >> to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public >> record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with >> Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & >> Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos >> Aires ICANN meeting >> (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), >> where he stated: >> And consequently ask the OCs >> to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be >> useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the >> proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers >> to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Paul Wilson >> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM >> To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >> >> Re >> >>> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against >>> them? >> >> I am happy with this option. >> >> >>> On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: >>> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they >>> considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down >>> to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they >>> have chosen. >> >> This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer >> we are looking for. >> >> Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: >> >> “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide >> against them?” >> >> Which I’d be ok with as well. >> >> Paul. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From jjs at dyalog.net Sun Jun 28 15:28:27 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 12:28:27 -0300 (GMT-03:00) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <39545735-C7F2-4EE2-B9DE-128EC60401EA@verisign.com> Message-ID: <13773663.64.1435505303062.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello Keith, my understanding is the same as yours. But whether or not the Assistant Secretary for Commerce aimed his remarks at CCWG Accountability or not, it remains that the ICG, having received its instructions and the 4 criteria for "transition" from the NTIA, cannot change or enlarge its remit, unless it receives written instructions to that effect from the US federal authorities who exercise oversight of the IANA functions. By accepting any (other) form of "advice" or influence, the ICG would compromise its duties of accountability and transparency to the global Internet community. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Keith Drazek" À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" Cc: "Paul Wilson" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Dimanche 28 Juin 2015 11:56:29 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In mentioning alternatives considered, I think Sec. Strickling was referring to the CCWG Accountability, not the ICG. Am I alone? Best, Keith > On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > > To sum up the latest remarks on this thread: > > - we will not request OCs to provide "comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered" (Manal); > > - if we approach the OCs, for them it could only be "an opportunity to share any material they feel would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record" (Manal); > > - anything additional to our original remit would only be "for the purpose of consolidating the public record" (Jean-Jacques); > > - we shall not change our remit unless we receive OFFICIAL, WRITTEN instructions to that effect (Jean-Jacques). > > Best regards, > Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Paul Wilson" > À: "Manal Ismail" > Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" > Envoyé: Dimanche 28 Juin 2015 09:47:55 > Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" > > >> On 28 Jun 2015, at 21:41, Manal Ismail wrote: >> Dear Jean-Jacques .. >> >> At least this is my understanding .. >> I believe, but stand to be corrected, that we're not requesting OCs to >> provide comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered, >> but offering an opportunity, for them, to share any material they feel >> would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record .. > > I agree. It is an opportunity, not a requirement, to provide > information about alternatives which were considered. > > Paul. > > > >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] >> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM >> To: Manal Ismail >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >> >> Dear Manal, >> I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it >> is about consolidating the public record. >> Best regards, >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Manal Ismail" >> À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" >> >> Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >> Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >> >> Dear All .. >> >> I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to >> re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. >> >> If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA >> transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out >> to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public >> record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with >> Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & >> Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos >> Aires ICANN meeting >> (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en..pdf), >> where he stated: >> And consequently ask the OCs >> to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be >> useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the >> proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers >> to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Kind Regards >> --Manal >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >> Paul Wilson >> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM >> To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >> >> Re >> >>> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against >>> them? >> >> I am happy with this option. >> >> >>> On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: >>> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they >>> considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down >>> to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they >>> have chosen. >> >> This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer >> we are looking for. >> >> Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: >> >> “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide >> against them?” >> >> Which I’d be ok with as well. >> >> Paul. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net > http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de Sun Jun 28 16:33:58 2015 From: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 18:33:58 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <686D75C5-F6CC-46FB-B5AF-F9A56E04D21D@verisign.com> Message-ID: <01EE22B2-F38D-4D13-A7B2-B89CAAD8B630@t-online.de> Thanks Paul, this interpretation meets my capabiltlity of expression in English. Wolf-Ulrich Sent from my personal phone > Am 27.06.2015 um 07:18 schrieb Paul Wilson : > > Re > >> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against them? > > I am happy with this option. > > >> On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: >> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they have chosen. > > This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer we are looking for. > > Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: > > “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide against them?” > > Which I’d be ok with as well. > > Paul. > From mueller at syr.edu Sun Jun 28 17:15:09 2015 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2015 17:15:09 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <39545735-C7F2-4EE2-B9DE-128EC60401EA@verisign.com> References: , <12594893.54.1435501906027.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <39545735-C7F2-4EE2-B9DE-128EC60401EA@verisign.com> Message-ID: <4b08b15d4a7046db835c9b0534605b92@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > In mentioning alternatives considered, I think Sec. Strickling was > referring to the CCWG Accountability, not the ICG. Am I alone? > > Best, > Keith > Probably so, but given that CWG will have to endorse and accept CCWG and incorporate Work Stream 1 into their final proposal, I think the comment applies to what we are doing. --MM From paf at frobbit.se Thu Jun 25 21:11:40 2015 From: paf at frobbit.se (Patrik =?utf-8?b?RsOkbHRzdHLDtm0=?=) Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 23:11:40 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] Meeting in Los Angeles Message-ID: <3FA9D8D8-D350-46F7-9D7F-AA439D4122E6@frobbit.se> All, The meeting in Los Angeles will be at THE WESTIN BONAVENTURE, 404 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90071, USA. Patrik Fältström Co-Chair, ICG -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 203 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mundy at tislabs.com Mon Jun 29 05:30:01 2015 From: mundy at tislabs.com (Russ Mundy) Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 01:30:01 -0400 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <39545735-C7F2-4EE2-B9DE-128EC60401EA@verisign.com> References: , <12594893.54.1435501906027.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <39545735-C7F2-4EE2-B9DE-128EC60401EA@verisign.com> Message-ID: Keith, I agree that documenting alternatives was probably meant for the CCWG rather than the OC’s. If some or all of the OC’s want to provide material to help consolidate the public record, I think that I’d be okay with that as long as it was an optional thing for the OC’s. RussM On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: > In mentioning alternatives considered, I think Sec. Strickling was referring to the CCWG Accountability, not the ICG. Am I alone? > > Best, > Keith > > >> On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> >> To sum up the latest remarks on this thread: >> >> - we will not request OCs to provide "comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered" (Manal); >> >> - if we approach the OCs, for them it could only be "an opportunity to share any material they feel would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record" (Manal); >> >> - anything additional to our original remit would only be "for the purpose of consolidating the public record" (Jean-Jacques); >> >> - we shall not change our remit unless we receive OFFICIAL, WRITTEN instructions to that effect (Jean-Jacques). >> >> Best regards, >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Paul Wilson" >> À: "Manal Ismail" >> Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" >> Envoyé: Dimanche 28 Juin 2015 09:47:55 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >> >> >>> On 28 Jun 2015, at 21:41, Manal Ismail wrote: >>> Dear Jean-Jacques .. >>> >>> At least this is my understanding .. >>> I believe, but stand to be corrected, that we're not requesting OCs to >>> provide comparative analysis of the different alternatives considered, >>> but offering an opportunity, for them, to share any material they feel >>> would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record .. >> >> I agree. It is an opportunity, not a requirement, to provide >> information about alternatives which were considered. >> >> Paul. >> >> >> >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] >>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM >>> To: Manal Ismail >>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >>> >>> Dear Manal, >>> I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it >>> is about consolidating the public record. >>> Best regards, >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Manal Ismail" >>> À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" >>> >>> Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >>> Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >>> >>> Dear All .. >>> >>> I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to >>> re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. >>> >>> If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA >>> transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach out >>> to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain public >>> record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in accordance with >>> Larry Strickling’s remarks at the "IANA Stewardship Transition & >>> Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the Sunday of Buenos >>> Aires ICANN meeting >>> (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun15-en.pdf), >>> where he stated: >>> And consequently ask the OCs >>> to let the ICG know of any material their community believes would be >>> useful to add to such record (for example: implications of the >>> proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, answers >>> to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of >>> Paul Wilson >>> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM >>> To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >>> >>> Re >>> >>>> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against >>>> them? >>> >>> I am happy with this option. >>> >>> >>>> On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: >>>> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case they >>>> considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles laid down >>>> to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the option they >>>> have chosen. >>> >>> This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the answer >>> we are looking for. >>> >>> Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: >>> >>> “IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide >>> against them?” >>> >>> Which I’d be ok with as well. >>> >>> Paul. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk Tue Jun 30 17:13:02 2015 From: Martin.Boyle at nominet.org.uk (Martin Boyle) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:13:02 +0000 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: References: , <12594893.54.1435501906027.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> <39545735-C7F2-4EE2-B9DE-128EC60401EA@verisign.com> Message-ID: <4ED5D5CBDF5F3E499DB990B095F010FE81AB414B@wds-exc1.okna.nominet.org.uk> Sorry all to be late into the discussion. I agree that the focus of the request was more to the accountability thread, but I still think that we should at least collect what material is in place for the stewardship proposals. I'd see the balance for the OCs of trying to ensure that they had as simple a solution as possible, incorporating the minimum of change to achieve effective and accountable stewardship, and garnering general consensus. I would guess that the NTIA's concerns really sit in these three categories. At least from the naming functions, there was a reference in BA to alternatives in its assessment (7 models considered, narrowed down to two, and then to a single option which was assessed in detail, always aware that a point of detail might send it back to look at the other alternative). Much of this assessment was fairly rapid - all the models could be seen as fulfilling the first two criteria, so it came down to, which was the option most likely to achieve general consensus? This is probably particularly important: there will be many who will argue that there was a failure in developing consensus because their preferred option was not chosen, or because there was some detail that they considered important that was not fleshed out or was deferred, or because they did not like the answer that those actively involved agreed on. We've already seen one such input (http://mm.ianacg.org/pipermail/icg-forum_ianacg.org/2015-June/000001.html). If I were Larry, I would be keen to show that the document gave me the material I'd need to answer the inevitable question about why a particular solution was not assessed. For us, this is probably no more than assuring ourselves that the focus was on solutions where consensus could be achieved. CWG Stewardship can answer that quite simply with the discussion at the Istanbul meeting on 26-7 March and by reference back to its first consultation in December 2014. This identified where views might converge (with more or less pain). For those more directly involved in the other two OCs' work, is a similar statement possible from their discussions? Martin -----Original Message----- From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf Of Russ Mundy Sent: 29 June 2015 06:30 To: Drazek, Keith Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" Keith, I agree that documenting alternatives was probably meant for the CCWG rather than the OC's. If some or all of the OC's want to provide material to help consolidate the public record, I think that I'd be okay with that as long as it was an optional thing for the OC's. RussM On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:56 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote: > In mentioning alternatives considered, I think Sec. Strickling was referring to the CCWG Accountability, not the ICG. Am I alone? > > Best, > Keith > > >> On Jun 28, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >> >> To sum up the latest remarks on this thread: >> >> - we will not request OCs to provide "comparative analysis of the >> different alternatives considered" (Manal); >> >> - if we approach the OCs, for them it could only be "an opportunity >> to share any material they feel would support the submitted proposal, >> to be put on public record" (Manal); >> >> - anything additional to our original remit would only be "for the >> purpose of consolidating the public record" (Jean-Jacques); >> >> - we shall not change our remit unless we receive OFFICIAL, WRITTEN instructions to that effect (Jean-Jacques). >> >> Best regards, >> Jean-Jacques. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Mail original ----- >> De: "Paul Wilson" >> À: "Manal Ismail" >> Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" , "IANA etc etc >> Coordination Group" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" >> >> Envoyé: Dimanche 28 Juin 2015 09:47:55 >> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >> >> >>> On 28 Jun 2015, at 21:41, Manal Ismail wrote: >>> Dear Jean-Jacques .. >>> >>> At least this is my understanding .. >>> I believe, but stand to be corrected, that we're not requesting OCs >>> to provide comparative analysis of the different alternatives >>> considered, but offering an opportunity, for them, to share any >>> material they feel would support the submitted proposal, to be put on public record .. >> >> I agree. It is an opportunity, not a requirement, to provide >> information about alternatives which were considered. >> >> Paul. >> >> >> >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Subrenat, Jean-Jacques [mailto:jjs at dyalog.net] >>> Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 9:34 AM >>> To: Manal Ismail >>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group; Paul Wilson; Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >>> >>> Dear Manal, >>> I could go along with the compromise suggested by you, insofar as it >>> is about consolidating the public record. >>> Best regards, >>> Jean-Jacques. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Mail original ----- >>> De: "Manal Ismail" >>> À: "Paul Wilson" , "Wolf-Ulrich Knoben" >>> >>> Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" >>> Envoyé: Samedi 27 Juin 2015 23:42:31 >>> Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >>> >>> Dear All .. >>> >>> I had to leave the meeting before concluding, so allow me to >>> re-iterate the following suggestion in writing .. >>> >>> If we agree, in principle, on maintaining public record of the IANA >>> transition process, then the ICG, through its chair(s), may reach >>> out to the OCs with an email flagging ICG's intention to maintain >>> public record that supports the IANA transition proposal, in >>> accordance with Larry Strickling's remarks at the "IANA Stewardship >>> Transition & Evolution of ICANN Accountability" session on the >>> Sunday of Buenos Aires ICANN meeting >>> (file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/transcript-iana-stewardship-21jun1 >>> 5-en.pdf), >>> where he stated: >>> And consequently ask the >>> OCs to let the ICG know of any material their community believes >>> would be useful to add to such record (for example: implications of >>> the proposal, alternatives considered, reasons for excluding them, >>> answers to anticipated questions, etc ... ) .. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Kind Regards >>> --Manal >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Internal-cg [mailto:internal-cg-bounces at ianacg.org] On Behalf >>> Of Paul Wilson >>> Sent: Saturday, June 27, 2015 7:19 AM >>> To: Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >>> Cc: IANA etc etc Coordination Group >>> Subject: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" >>> >>> Re >>> >>>> IF you considered other alternatives, WHY did you decide against >>>> them? >>> >>> I am happy with this option. >>> >>> >>>> On 26 Jun 2015, at 3:34, Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de wrote: >>>> I wonder whether we shouldn't question the communities, in case >>>> they considered alternative models, 1. Which were the principles >>>> laid down to guide them and 2. What was the decisive point for the >>>> option they have chosen. >>> >>> This sounds a *little* too prescriptive for me, in terms of the >>> answer we are looking for. >>> >>> Perhaps what Wolf-Unrich is asking for could be expressed as: >>> >>> "IF you considered other alternatives, WHY and HOW did you decide >>> against them?" >>> >>> Which I'd be ok with as well. >>> >>> Paul. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Internal-cg mailing list >>> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >>> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg at apnic.net >> http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Internal-cg mailing list >> Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org >> http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org > > _______________________________________________ > Internal-cg mailing list > Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org > http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From alissa at cooperw.in Tue Jun 30 17:21:08 2015 From: alissa at cooperw.in (Alissa Cooper) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:21:08 -0700 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> Message-ID: <998D4C60-D1EC-4ED8-9588-8F2305FCF887@cooperw.in> I think we need to stick to our decision from the end of the meeting, which was to put aside the idea of asking the communities anything until we have a chance to review or re-review what they’ve already sent us. For example, I just did a quick read of Section VI.A of the names proposal, which contains an analysis of alternatives considered (see in particular page 48, of which I’ve copied an extract below). In our assessment of this proposal, we may well conclude that the detail provided there is sufficient. Or we may not, but in any event it is incumbent upon us to assess what we’ve already received before deciding if we have a question to ask. We need a bit of time to re-review the other two proposals as well. Alissa — The move from seven potential models to two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model was iterative over a series of sessions. In one session, after explanation of legal counsel’s findings, two models: the internal trust and the external trust, were deemed unsuitable to meet the CWG-Stewardship’s requirements because the structures were not necessarily recognized legally outside of the U.S. Upon conclusion of these sessions, the CWG-Stewardship also agreed to defer further consideration of the “Contract Co.” model (in part, because it did not receive sufficient support after the first public comment period), until the viability of the remaining models could be further considered. In addition, the CWG- Stewardship agreed to defer further consideration of the fully internal model or the standalone IANA hybrid model. The CWG-Stewardship agreed that the remaining models: two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model (the legal separation model and the functional separate model) required further research on the part of legal counsel before the CWG-Stewardship could make a determination. Following the meetings in Istanbul, the CWG-Stewardship, in consultation with its independent legal counsel, held various meetings and reviewed various memos from its legal counsel to determine which of the two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model – the legal separation model and the functional separation model – would be recommended. The CWG-Stewardship determined that the legal separation model was preferred because it would establish PTI as a separate legal entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. In addition, the legal separation model allowed for a contract between ICANN and PTI. With that decision reached, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues related to the model. The consideration for the CWG-Stewardship, with consultation from its independent legal counsel, became whether to support a functionally separate model or a legally separate model. The group eventually chose the legally separate model because it would establish the separate PTI entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. With that compromise in place, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues From jjs at dyalog.net Tue Jun 30 17:54:22 2015 From: jjs at dyalog.net (Subrenat, Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:54:22 -0300 (GMT-03:00) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <998D4C60-D1EC-4ED8-9588-8F2305FCF887@cooperw.in> Message-ID: <26207188.46.1435686857906.JavaMail.jjs-mac-2@MacBook-Air-de-Jean-Jacques.local> Hello Alissa, I agree with your analysis and suggestion. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Alissa Cooper" À: "Daniel Karrenberg" Cc: "IANA etc etc Coordination Group" Envoyé: Mardi 30 Juin 2015 14:21:08 Objet: Re: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" I think we need to stick to our decision from the end of the meeting, which was to put aside the idea of asking the communities anything until we have a chance to review or re-review what they’ve already sent us. For example, I just did a quick read of Section VI.A of the names proposal, which contains an analysis of alternatives considered (see in particular page 48, of which I’ve copied an extract below). In our assessment of this proposal, we may well conclude that the detail provided there is sufficient. Or we may not, but in any event it is incumbent upon us to assess what we’ve already received before deciding if we have a question to ask. We need a bit of time to re-review the other two proposals as well. Alissa — The move from seven potential models to two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model was iterative over a series of sessions. In one session, after explanation of legal counsel’s findings, two models: the internal trust and the external trust, were deemed unsuitable to meet the CWG-Stewardship’s requirements because the structures were not necessarily recognized legally outside of the U.S. Upon conclusion of these sessions, the CWG-Stewardship also agreed to defer further consideration of the “Contract Co.” model (in part, because it did not receive sufficient support after the first public comment period), until the viability of the remaining models could be further considered. In addition, the CWG- Stewardship agreed to defer further consideration of the fully internal model or the standalone IANA hybrid model. The CWG-Stewardship agreed that the remaining models: two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model (the legal separation model and the functional separate model) required further research on the part of legal counsel before the CWG-Stewardship could make a determination. Following the meetings in Istanbul, the CWG-Stewardship, in consultation with its independent legal counsel, held various meetings and reviewed various memos from its legal counsel to determine which of the two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model – the legal separation model and the functional separation model – would be recommended. The CWG-Stewardship determined that the legal separation model was preferred because it would establish PTI as a separate legal entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. In addition, the legal separation model allowed for a contract between ICANN and PTI. With that decision reached, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues related to the model. The consideration for the CWG-Stewardship, with consultation from its independent legal counsel, became whether to support a functionally separate model or a legally separate model. The group eventually chose the legally separate model because it would establish the separate PTI entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. With that compromise in place, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org From daniel at karrenberg.net Tue Jun 30 19:38:59 2015 From: daniel at karrenberg.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:38:59 +0200 Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: <998D4C60-D1EC-4ED8-9588-8F2305FCF887@cooperw.in> References: <558C2352.5050900@karrenberg.net> <998D4C60-D1EC-4ED8-9588-8F2305FCF887@cooperw.in> Message-ID: I support this approach. --- Sent from a handheld device. > On 30.06.2015, at 19:21, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > I think we need to stick to our decision from the end of the meeting, which was to put aside the idea of asking the communities anything until we have a chance to review or re-review what they’ve already sent us. For example, I just did a quick read of Section VI.A of the names proposal, which contains an analysis of alternatives considered (see in particular page 48, of which I’ve copied an extract below). In our assessment of this proposal, we may well conclude that the detail provided there is sufficient. Or we may not, but in any event it is incumbent upon us to assess what we’ve already received before deciding if we have a question to ask. We need a bit of time to re-review the other two proposals as well. > > Alissa > > > — > > The move from seven potential models to two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model was iterative over a series of sessions. In one session, after explanation of legal counsel’s findings, two models: the internal trust and the external trust, were deemed unsuitable to meet the CWG-Stewardship’s requirements because the structures were not necessarily recognized legally outside of the U.S. Upon conclusion of these sessions, the CWG-Stewardship also agreed to defer further consideration of the “Contract Co.” model (in part, because it did not receive sufficient support after the first public comment period), until the viability of the remaining models could be further considered. In addition, the CWG- Stewardship agreed to defer further consideration of the fully internal model or the standalone IANA hybrid model. The CWG-Stewardship agreed that the remaining > models: two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model (the legal separation model and the functional separate model) required further research on the part of legal counsel before the CWG-Stewardship could make a determination. > > Following the meetings in Istanbul, the CWG-Stewardship, in consultation with its > independent legal counsel, held various meetings and reviewed various memos from its > legal counsel to determine which of the two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid > model – the legal separation model and the functional separation model – would be > recommended. The CWG-Stewardship determined that the legal separation model was > preferred because it would establish PTI as a separate legal entity at the outset, allowing for > possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. In addition, the legal separation > model allowed for a contract between ICANN and PTI. With that decision reached, the > CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this > model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues related to the model. > > The consideration for the CWG-Stewardship, with consultation from its independent legal > counsel, became whether to support a functionally separate model or a legally separate > model. The group eventually chose the legally separate model because it would establish > the separate PTI entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the > future, if necessary. With that compromise in place, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus > to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel > assisted in addressing governance issues From mnuduma at yahoo.com Tue Jun 30 22:18:30 2015 From: mnuduma at yahoo.com (Mary Uduma) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 22:18:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Internal-cg] "Alternatives" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1549574450.3261154.1435702710730.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> All,Alissa has just reinforced my suggestion during the 25th June which Milton also alluded to. I support Alissa's analysis, I think we should proceed along the line of her suggested approach. Mary Uduma On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 4:41 PM, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: I support this approach. --- Sent from a handheld device. > On 30.06.2015, at 19:21, Alissa Cooper wrote: > > I think we need to stick to our decision from the end of the meeting, which was to put aside the idea of asking the communities anything until we have a chance to review or re-review what they’ve already sent us. For example, I just did a quick read of Section VI.A of the names proposal, which contains an analysis of alternatives considered (see in particular page 48, of which I’ve copied an extract below). In our assessment of this proposal, we may well conclude that the detail provided there is sufficient. Or we may not, but in any event it is incumbent upon us to assess what we’ve already received before deciding if we have a question to ask. We need a bit of time to re-review the other two proposals as well. > > Alissa > > > — > > The move from seven potential models to two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model was iterative over a series of sessions. In one session, after explanation of legal counsel’s findings, two models: the internal trust and the external trust, were deemed unsuitable to meet the CWG-Stewardship’s requirements because the structures were not necessarily recognized legally outside of the U.S. Upon conclusion of these sessions, the CWG-Stewardship also agreed to defer further consideration of the “Contract Co.” model (in part, because it did not receive sufficient support after the first public comment period), until the viability of the remaining models could be further considered. In addition, the CWG- Stewardship agreed to defer further consideration of the fully internal model or the standalone IANA hybrid model. The CWG-Stewardship agreed that the remaining > models: two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid model (the legal separation model and the functional separate model) required further research on the part of legal counsel before the CWG-Stewardship could make a determination. > > Following the meetings in Istanbul, the CWG-Stewardship, in consultation with its > independent legal counsel, held various meetings and reviewed various memos from its > legal counsel to determine which of the two variants of an internal accountability/hybrid > model – the legal separation model and the functional separation model – would be > recommended. The CWG-Stewardship determined that the legal separation model was > preferred because it would establish PTI as a separate legal entity at the outset, allowing for > possible separation from ICANN in the future, if necessary. In addition, the legal separation > model allowed for a contract between ICANN and PTI. With that decision reached, the > CWG-Stewardship turned its focus to developing an accountability framework to support this > model, while legal counsel assisted in addressing governance issues related to the model. > > The consideration for the CWG-Stewardship, with consultation from its independent legal > counsel, became whether to support a functionally separate model or a legally separate > model. The group eventually chose the legally separate model because it would establish > the separate PTI entity at the outset, allowing for possible separation from ICANN in the > future, if necessary. With that compromise in place, the CWG-Stewardship turned its focus > to developing an accountability framework to support this model, while legal counsel > assisted in addressing governance issues _______________________________________________ Internal-cg mailing list Internal-cg at mm.ianacg.org http://mm.ianacg.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-cg_ianacg.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: